Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

National Insurance

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-pensioners with annual gross incomes below £10,000 a year would be affected by the imposition of national insurance contributions on income from savings in excess of £3,000 a year.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We estimate that for the United Kingdom, in 1991–92, some 230,000 non-pensioners with gross incomes below £10,000 a year would have to pay national insurance contributions on their income from savings.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the use of national insurance contributions as an underhand tax is fundamentally dishonest and that early retirers, widows and those on limited incomes would be hurt by the imposition of a savings tax as proposed by the Labour party?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is certainly right to identify the type of people who are likely to be hit—in all,

more than 1 million people. What is more, they would get absolutely nothing in benefit entitlement for this purported contribution.

Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating my constituent, Archie Heptinstall, on his 80th birthday this week? Will the right hon. Gentleman further explain to my constituent why people who reach that age end up in the appalling position of having all their age allowances clawed back by the Government?

Mr. Newton: I would wish warmly to join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman's constituent on his 80th birthday, particularly as, next month, the income support premium for the over-80s will be raised in real terms for the second time in three years.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the average cost to a non-pensioner basic rate taxpayer of the imposition of national insurance contributions at 9 per cent. on savings income in excess of £3,000 a year.

Mr. Newton: We estimate that in the United Kingdom the average cost in 1991–92 to a non-pensioner basic rate taxpayer would be £280.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that imposing an extra 9 per cent. on savings income would almost certainly deter individuals from saving and that the knock-on effect would be to reduce the resources available for investment in industry? Does he agree that such a policy—it is, of course, Labour policy—would be sheer lunacy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is based on the Labour party's ideological dislike of people who are not wholly dependent on the state?

Mr. Newton: I have great sympathy with every point that my hon. Friend made. I have the greatest difficulty in finding the remotest sense in the policy of a party which says that it is in favour of investment but which goes out of its way by every possible means to penalise saving.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Secretary of State explain where is the remotest sense in the present system whereby the editor of a national newspaper pays less than 1 per cent. of his


salary in national insurance, someone on the Prime Minister's salary pays 3 per cent. and a person on average wages pays 9 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government—without announcing it in any manifesto—have increased national insurance charges by 40 per cent?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are right. He has looked at marginal rates in some cases, but not in others. The basic point about the national insurance system is that it is a contributory one whereby what is paid bears some relationship to what is received. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tax people more rigorously, he should do so openly and not in the disguised form in which that is proposed.

Self-employed

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many self-employed people earn more than £20,280 a year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): We estimate that, in 1991–92 about 400,000 self-employed people will earn above the upper profit limit of £20,280.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bearing in mind the Opposition's unalloyed joy at the thought of an increase in national insurance contributions for people who earn more than that, is it time that the Opposition came clean on their plans for the self-employed, who are the engine of the power house for this country? Does my hon. Friend agree that any extra tax on the self-employed without benefits in return would damage the country's chances of growth, and would help it in no way whatsoever?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, in his inimitable style, has smoked out one of the hidden parts of the Opposition's agenda. I hope that, during this Question Time, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will make Labour's policy clear. The Labour party is committed to removing the upper earnings limit for employed persons, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West has not made his party's policy on the self-employed clear. We have flushed him out today. His policy is the start of Labour's hand-in-the-till tax.

Mr. Skinner: One thing that the Opposition are certain about is that those who earn more than £20,000 have every right to be called upon to pay the extra 9 per cent. Members of Parliament earn between £20,000 and £30,000. If they cannot find that extra 9 per cent.—a few hundred quid a year—what right have Tory Members to talk about pensioners who must get by on about £56 a week? I am prepared to pay my contribution. It is time that Tory Members understood that they should pay theirs, too.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman shows the Opposition's fundamental commitment to tax, tax and tax again and then spend, spend and spend again. He ignores the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, our national insurance scheme is founded on a contributory principle that has served the country well for 50 years. We now know what the Labour party's agenda is on that issue.

National Insurance

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the time necessary to switch from the current system for collecting national insurance to one based on annual assessment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): It could take three years or even more, depending on the exact nature of the change and, of course, the priority given to it.

Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that that bizarre proposal, tucked into the back end of a newspaper on 25 January by an Opposition spokesman, would cause total chaos and huge problems for companies making such a change, particularly small companies? It would mean devastating expense in terms of new software and the reprogramming of computers. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the chaos proposed by the Labour party?

Miss Widdecombe: The proposal would cause a huge administrative burden not only on business—the necessity to give businesses good notice would take some time—but on the DSS and the Inland Revenue. It would also mean massive computer reprogramming and possibly the expense of other computer programmes which would have to be introduced.

Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of a member of the Scottish National party in the House, may I ask the Minister to write me a letter setting out, in terms of computer programming and related difficulties, the problems of collecting national insurance in the event of an independent Scottish Parliament?

Miss Widdecombe: Where are the Members of the Scottish National party if they are so concerned about the matter? As for the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman sketched, he may wish to test that policy with members of the SNP to find out precisely how such a system would work. Although I am always prepared to enter discussions with the hon. Gentleman about hypothetical matters, one must also balance the amount of time and expense that it would take to comment on something that is not a reality.

Pension Funds

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last held a meeting with the Occupational Pensions Board to discuss protection of pension funds.

Mr. Newton: I have had a number of informal discussions with the chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board in recent months.

Mr. Corbyn: In those discussions, did the Secretary of State draw to the attention of the Occupational Pensions Board the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of money owned by Maxwell and Mirror Group pensioners? Did he also draw attention to the total inadequacy of control over pension fund investments and procedures? Is he prepared to state clearly now that he will introduce legislation to ensure that the sort of scandal that occurred, which robbed the workers of the Maxwell and Mirror corporations, will not occur again and those workers and others like them will be protected in future?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which is examining


those matters, and I see that the Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is sitting in front of the hon. Gentleman. We have seen in the press suggestions about what members of the Committee might say, and we shall consider their proposals with interest. I spent two hours responding to questions put to me by the Select Committee only a fortnight or so ago. I made it absolutely clear that, when we know precisely what happened in that case and can draw the lessons from it, we shall be willing to learn them and take note of the need for future action, if that is shown to be necessary.

Mr. Hind: In the light of the serious situation which has arisen in relation to the Maxwell case, will my right hon. Friend take a good look at the pension funds of ABG Research, which is about to be wound up? Hundreds of pensioners in the north and south of England who work for that company are about to lose their pensions, including a 79-year-old widow. Will my right hon. Friend consider the problem to see whether the Government can help?

Mr. Newton: I am concerned about the position in which some people find themselves as a result of problems with the funds. That is why, among other matters, I made it clear that, in the appropriate circumstances, we would expect to operate the provisions—through state scheme premiums—to ensure that people at least receive their state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement.

Mr. Kirkwood: Although I fully understand why the Secretary of State needs to be cautious about the Maxwell case, will he be more firm on the need for change? His earlier answer suggested that there was some doubt in his mind about whether that was necessary. Is he having any discussions with the Treasury to find ways of getting some compensation for pensioners, who stand to lose millions of pounds?

Mr. Newton: I have made the point about the SERPS buy-back provisions and the guarantee involved, but I cannot go beyond that. On the wider issue, it has been made clear, not simply from what I have said but through what I have done over many years—in an earlier ministerial capacity and in my present one—that we are more than willing to take action where it is shown to be necessary, once we are sure that such action would be well-judged. We are some way short of being able to judge precisely what is required, especially as questions have been raised about the regulatory machinery under the Financial Services Act 1986, as well as the arrangements of the Occupational Pensions Board.

Mr. Irvine: My right hon. Friend will know that the Serious Fraud Office is conducting investigations into fraud and dishonesty in this sphere. However, there is also the related issue of possible negligence and breach of duty on the part of the supervisory authorities. Will my right hon. Friend give the several hundred Maxwell pensioners in my constituency an assurance that he will scrutinise carefully the role of those supervisory authorities—such as the Occupational Pensions Board—in relation to that subject? If those authorities were negligent or in any way in breach of duty, it is important that that fact should be uncovered at an early stage.

Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that, were the investigations by the Serious

Fraud Office to produce evidence of fraud that would have to be considered by those involved in criminal prosecutions of if there were claims that the Occupational Pensions Board had been negligent or in any other way culpable of failure to carry out its duties as imposed by the law, those matters would be considered with great care.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the answer that he has given on paying the guaranteed minimum pension to the Maxwell pensioners is wholly inadequate? Does he accept that many of the constituents of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) face losing their houses if they do not receive the full pension? Once the facts are established, will the Government be prepared to move beyond carrying out what they are, after all, required to do by law?

Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot go beyond what I have said this afternoon and on earlier occasions, including what I have told the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee, about the guarantee of SERPS rights—to put it in shorthand terms—in respect of the guaranteed minimum pension. As I told the Select Committee—I make no apologies for reminding the hon. Gentleman of it—anything going beyond that would raise huge implications for all kinds of investments.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Robert Maxwell episode has vividly illustrated to the nation the fact that an unscrupulous director can put his hand in the till and get hold of pension fund money? That being so, many people throughout the nation who are in pension schemes are frightened. Will my right hon. Friend go as far as to say that we definitely intend in the fulness of time to bring in legislation and, I hope, include in the legislation the provision that there should be at least one employee representative among pension fund trustees?

Mr. Newton: To take the latter point first, if my hon. Friend looks at many, perhaps all, of the Maxwell pension fund trustee bodies, he will find that they were split 50:50—there was employee representation. I do not think that that would necessarily solve the problem. I cannot go beyond what I have said, except to make it clear once again that if and when it is clear that a further legislative change will materially assist in ensuring that this sort of thing does not happen again, we will be ready to make it. But there is still a great lack of clarity and we are not prepared to pretend that we know the answer, thereby running the risk of causing at least as much damage as we do good.

Mr. Meacher: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the banks and the Government have treated Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners extremely shabbily? Will he seek to ensure that the banks hand back the pension fund assets which belong to scheme members and which the banks have no right to keep, given their reckless lending practices? Is not the right hon. Gentleman culpably negligent in that, 20 months after the Social Security Act 1990 became law, he has still not introduced the regulations that would protect pension funds in the event of bankruptcy? Although the right hon. Gentleman has said again—several times today—that he will pay MGN pensioners their guaranteed minimum pension, will he accept that it is a mere pittance, and that if Barlow Clowes group shareholders who knowingly took the risk of


speculating offshore can be compensated by the Government, the pensioners in MGN and other pension funds are no less deserving?

Mr. Newton: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of what was said at the time of the Barlow Clowes affair, following an investigation by the ombudsman into what was seen to be a unique set of circumstances.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's other points—I hope, not taking too much time over it—the debt-on-wind-up provisions were originally linked, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, with the wider provisions for limited price indexation. As they involved a great deal of the same work to bring them into effect—work that would have taken a considerable time—and would have imposed further contingent or actual liabilities on funds at a time when there was already considerable anxiety because of the uncertainty over the Barber judgment—

Mr. Meacher: The Government dropped limited price indexation.

Mr. Newton: We did not. We made it clear that we would give further consideration to it once the Barber judgment was clear, and that is precisely what we are beginning to do.
On the hon. Gentleman's first question, he will understand that I have no power to order banks to take particular actions. However, he will have noted what some banks have said in recent days about their attitude to this matter.

National Insurance

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more people would be liable for payment of employees' national insurance contributions if the atypical work directive were adopted.

Mr. Jack: We estimate that a further 1,750,000 people would have to pay national insurance contributions if the directive were adopted.

Mr. Squire: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the directive, which is strongly supported by the Labour party, would discriminate heavily against part-time workers, especially women who are trying to combine a job with family responsibilities? Is this yet another instance of the anti-choice nature of the Labour party which, in the guise of new-found moderation, seeks to deny that which is currently available?

Mr. Jack: Again, the Opposition seem to be confused on the issue. They seem to have signed up to the work directive from which the measure comes. As my hon. Friend says, the proposal would bring another 1,750,000 people into the position that he describes. My hon. Friend is right. Many people take a part-time or lower-paid job because it suits their circumstances and is a good choice for them. Those people benefit from the fact that they do not have to make national insurance contributions. Again, the Opposition are recommending a "take" society.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister confirm that even if the work directive came into force, the Government could still levy national insurance at a zero rating of 1 per cent. instead of the full rate? Would not many of those workers

prefer that option, with all the benefits that would come from it, rather than the scare stories that the Government are putting over in this pre-election period?

Mr. Jack: I know that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous about detail, and I recommend that he reads article 2 of the directive. It is not disputed by any member of the European Community that if that part of the directive were to be implemented everybody would have to pay for the associated benefits. I refer the hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who, if I have understood her words, made it clear that she did not think that it was a very good idea for people below the lower earnings limit to pay small amounts of national insurance. The hon. Gentleman should look at the detail.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the directive would force employers to pay national insurance for employees who were below the lower earnings limit and that, effectively, that would be a tax on businesses that wish to employ part-time workers? Given that we wish to give British industry the flexibility to employ part-time workers, is not this another effort by Labour to hit the people who most want to seek jobs?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an interesting point. The measure, coupled to Labour's proposal for a minimum wage, is a straightforward attack on jobs. The receipts received by us on the consultation document about the directive show that the Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Association claims that some 40 per cent. of those employed in its industry would be sacked in the first year. That is the kind of enlightened policy to which the Opposition are signing up.

State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will revise the state earnings-related pension scheme to make higher pensions available for those people made redundant in their late 50s who are unlikely to obtain another job.

Mr. Newton: We have no plans to do so.

Mr. Bennett: The Minister will recall that during the first Tory recession, Ministers claimed that making many people redundant was a price worth paying to make British industry leaner and fitter. For many of my constituents who were made redundant, it was not a price worth paying. They lost their jobs and the chance to get another job and contribute to their pensions. Now, when they are at pensionable age, their pension is much below that of people who were fortunate enough to keep their jobs. Is not it time for the Government to compensate the people whom they damaged in their first Tory recession?

Mr. Newton: That is a slightly odd point from a Labour Member in view of the fact that the SERPS entitlement of such people, which is what the original question was about, is precisely as it was left by the Labour Government. None of the changes made to SERPS affects anybody who is retiring this century. It is even odder that many of the people about whom the hon. Gentleman expresses concern are precisely those who would suffer from Labour's proposed savings tax.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the current rules for SERPS, there is a cut-off in the


amount which is the same as the cut-off for the earnings limit? Will he confirm that all the figures published so far by the Labour party, in attempting to collect more money from the national insurance contribution, show that it will not put a penny of that money into increased SERPS for people who retire? Is that not a clear case of fraud?

Mr. Newton: Even in these relatively heated times, I am not sure that I would wish to use such a word as fraud against the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). However, 1 endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion that the SERPS entitlement accrues on earnings between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit and that the Labour party's proposal to scrap the upper earnings limit for contribution purposes is associated with no increase in benefit for those persons.

Pensioners (Owner-Occupiers)

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are owner-occupiers and have paid off their mortgage.

Miss Widdecombe: The latest figures available show that in 1988, 50 per cent. of pensioners were owner-occupiers, of whom 46 per cent. owned their homes outright. That compares well with 1979, when only 38 per cent. owned their homes outright.

Mr. Bowden: With more and more pensioners owing their homes outright, and with eight out of 10 recently retired pensioners having an income from investment and savings, is it not reasonable to recognise a measure of prosperity among pensioners? If resources are to be used to increase pensions, should they not be used to target those in greatest need, rather than spreading across the board and benefiting both rich and poor? Does not the idea of giving out a blanket provision look like political bribery in an election year?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It not only looks like political bribery—it probably is. It is perhaps worth pointing out that in the past three years we have spent some £350 million on the poorer pensioners. Whereas it is right to make sure that the value of the basic state pension is preserved for all income brackets we believe that any extra resources should be directed to the poorer end. The Labour party may well find that by the time it has spent billions of pounds on all income levels it will not have the extra money to spend on those who need it most. That is the price that Labour will have to pay for its policy, in the unlikely event of its ever being able to implement it.

Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister not aware that a significant number of pensioners who own their own homes are among the poorest in the country? Many have all their capital tied up in their homes and have to use the meagre resources of the basic state retirement pension to repair and restore their homes and to pay their heating bills? Is not that situation made even worse by the massive Government cuts in renovation grants for elderly people? Will the Government recognise that the only way that many of those pensioners will have a happy and healthy retirement is through a substantial increase in the basic rate of income of at least £5 for a single person and £8 per couple, which is the commitment of the Labour party and which is supported by pensioner groups throughout the

country as was shown by a recent lobby of Parliament by pensioners from the north-west which was supported by many Conservative Members?

Miss Widdecombe: When those same pensioners understand that blanket commitments of that type will erode the extra money available to help the poorer end, they may take rather a different view. When they also understand that housing costs play a proportionately lower part in pensioners' expenditure in England than in the rest of Europe, they may be grateful for the way in which we have promoted home ownership. If 50 per cent. of those retiring now own their own homes, they do so thanks almost solely to the policies pursued and enacted by the Government. We have made a major contribution to the overall income of pensioners, while all that the Labour party has to offer is inflationary erosion of savings, a failure in home ownership and many other schemes that Labour has offered; although such proposals make it seem that pensioners are better off, because they are offered with other features, in reality it is a small percentage rise. Labour has nothing new to offer. We saw the effects of those policies and, in the unlikely event of the Labour party taking power, we shall see them again.

Pension Levels

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about pension levels.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have maintained the real value of the basic retirement pension since we took office in 1979 and we are pledged to continue this policy.

Mr. Taylor: At my weekend surgery three pensioners came to see me in considerable distress because of the difficulty that they faced in paying their water and electricity bills and other bills from private utilities following the large price increases. Is it not time that those pensioners, including the one who told me that she was keeping warm during the day by clutching a hot-water bottle because she could not afford heating bills, were given a decent state pension as of right, without the humiliation of a contributory test, which involves means-testing for those who are in greatest need?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman examines the incomes of retirement pensioners since the Government took office, he will find that they have increased substantially. From 1979 to 1988 they increased by about 34 per cent., and there have been further improvements since 1988. Under this Government, the income of retirement pensioners as a whole has increased more in each year than it did throughout the Labour Government's administration.

Mr. Dunn: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate as to the impact on pensioner living standards of the suggestion that petrol prices be increased by 50p per gallon, and especially the impact on pensioners who live in the country and who need a motor car for shopping and other aspects of life? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the 50p tax on petrol is a Liberal Democrat idea?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that the House needs no reminding of that. None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for


doing so. He will realise the concern that I have for disabled people, who would be hit by such an increase in petrol tax.

Mr. Meacher: In the light of the current Conservative "Newsline" pledge that the Conservative party, if it wins the election, will "target social security" so that it is
not a handout to those who do not need it",
will the Minister confirm that that is a Tory pledge to means test pensions after the election? Will he also confirm that that is exactly what a previous Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—said that he intended to do during a notorious private briefing? Before the right hon. Gentleman issues a denial, will he confirm that before the previous election the Tories said that they would continue to pay child benefit as before—only to freeze it immediately for three years when they took office? Does he recall that before 1979 the Tories said that they would maintain the value of the retirement pension in line with rising living standards—a pledge which was promptly broken when they took office? As a result, a single pensioner has lost £17 a week under the Government while a married couple have lost £28.

Mr. Scott: I can say unequivocally and without a shadow of doubt that the Conservative party has no intention whatever, when it is returned to office, to means test the basic retirement pension. As I have already said, we have pledged ourselves to maintain the pension's real value. What we shall do, as we have done over the past three years, is to ensure that poorer pensioners—those who have not benefited from the result of our general policies towards pensioners which have increased pensioners' real living standards by over 34 per cent.—will be helped. To that end, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already said, we have contributed about £350 million since October 1989.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mrs. Alice Mahon. I call Mr. John Evans. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I call Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

Mrs. Gorman: No. 15, Sir.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes you shout out the names of hon. Members who are caught up in British Rail delays. It is most unreasonable—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Benefits (Recent Settlers)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the eligibility criteria for benefits for individuals recently settled in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jack: People who have the right of residence in the United Kingdom and who might apply for social security benefits will have their application assessed on the same criteria as British citizens. Those criteria are kept under review.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the recent debate on the Asylum Bill, our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that about 30,000 people are registered as asylum seekers, without their families, and that they are allowed six months' benefit immediately upon registering as asylum seekers? Will my hon. Friend

please comment on the cost of that and on the fact that, 50 years after the Beveridge report, we have moved a long way from the principle of paying into the kitty through insurance before being allowed to draw out of it?

Mr. Jack: First, on a point of detail, people are not automatically entitled to six months' social security. The longest period for which an order book can be issued to an asylum seeker who makes a successful application for income support is 20 weeks. Secondly, we are very aware of the seriousness of that development. Admissions to the United Kingdom are matters for our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
On income support applications, I reassure my hon. Friend that the standard acknowledgement letter, a copy of which I have, has been markedly improved by watermarking and the addition of a photograph. That is a key part in the identification process of an asylum seeker applying for income support. In the first two months since its advent, that process has reduced by 40 per cent. the number of people making application for asylum status. It is important that we maintain our form of help because among asylum seekers there are those who will ultimately be proved to be genuine refugees.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Fraud

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to change the prosecution procedures in cases of fraud.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir. Wherever they have been operating, persons whose dishonesty has infringed the criminal law, on the basis of reliable and admissible evidence, will continue to be prosecuted. If, on review, any procedural change is shown to be desirable, the Government will consider the steps that need to be taken.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Attorney-General aware that, while the West Bromwich building society and financial advisers have grown fat and rich by selling home income equity bonds, 14,000 pensioners face the prospect of losing their homes, including some of my constituents who were not advised that the bonds were dangerous? One pensioner, tragically, has taken his life because of them. Is it not fraud of the most cynical, wicked type that financial advisers are not telling elderly people that those bonds are dangerous and that they are likely to lose their homes within two years? What does the Attorney-General intend to do about that?

The Attorney-General: I am naturally extremely sorry to hear of the personal circumstances that the hon. Gentleman very properly brings to the attention of the House, but he will not expect me to prejudge any issue of criminality that may arise. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is evidence of criminality, he should draw it to the attention of the police, if he has not done so already.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, since it was established in 1988, the Serious Fraud Office, under the direction of Barbara Mills, has done an outstandingly good job and has brought a number


of successful prosecutions for fraud? Before we make any radical changes such as doing away with jury trials, should we not think very carefully indeed?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Recent comment has been disfigured by a good deal of misinformation. The Serious Fraud Office has been in operation for three years and has achieved a striking rate of success in serious and complex frauds. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the tribute that he pays.

Mr. John Morris: Does the Attorney-General accept that there is concern about our procedures? Will the Lord Chancellor consider asking the Lord Chief Justice to establish a committee of judges and practitioners to propose reforms to be approved by a practice direction, and by legislation where necessary? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that while juries are unequalled in deciding dishonesty, the burden of lengthy trials is becoming unfair on jurors? Why are there such a multiplicity of counts, and sometimes of defendants, with long opening speeches and insufficient identification of the issues for the jury until nearly the end of a trial?

The Attorney-General: Obviously, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will heed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I am not sure about there being a multiplicity of counts. In the recently concluded County NatWest and Blue Arrow case, there was only one count—yet comment on it included the assertion that the Serious Fraud Office used a "scattergun approach". In Guinness 2, there were five counts. I believe that I am right in saying that in the most recent 20 cases, there have been at most 22 counts. Some of them have to be in the alternative, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Every effort is made to bring matters into clear focus.
Incidentally, I was interested to read in the Financial Times and other newspapers today that the foreman in the Guinness 2 trial of Mr. Seelig and Lord Spens said that the prosecution had made a good job of identifying the structure of that case.

Mr. John Marshall: Visitors to Westminster Hall are amazed at Warren Hastings' ability to survive a case which lasted seven years. Is there not a danger that modern cases go on too long and cover too wide an area? Is it not sometimes the judges who are overwhelmed by the evidence?

The Attorney-General: I am very sensitive to my hon. Friend's reference to Warren Hastings' because it was Edmund Burke, a kinsman of mine, who prosecuted him over that length of time. I agree with my hon. Friend that recent cases last far too long, and that a means must be found of securing quicker trials. In the County NatWest and Blue Arrow case, the time taken before the jury by the prosecution amounted to 27·5 per cent. of the total. At present, there is no means by which a judge can sufficiently control the length of time taken by a defendant, particularly—this was not the case with the County NatWest and Blue Arrow trial—one who is defending himself. We must find a quicker way of securing justice. That issue is not one on which the Government have made up their mind, and all suggestions will be sensibly considered.

Serious Fraud Office

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what is the current complement for the Serious Fraud Office; what is the number of staff in post; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: The complement of the Serious Fraud Office is 129 permanent posts. All those posts are filled and, in addition, a number of temporary staff are employed to meet the varying demands of its case load.

Mr. Skinner: Are there any doctors among that complement? What is the source of the medical advice given in fraud trials? Why was Roger Seelig told by someone giving medical advice several months after his trial began that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown, yet last week he was roaring up the M4 in his Porsche to look after his two properties? Ernest Saunders was told that he should leave gaol after serving 10 months of a five-year sentence because he was a victim of senile dementia, yet now he is running his own business. I have a suggestion for the Attorney-General. He ought to swap the doctors that he has at the Serious Fraud Office for those who decide applications for disability allowance and attendance allowance. If he did that, some of our constituents might receive benefits, and the people involved in crime might get sent down for longer periods.

The Attorney-General: There is no space in the Serious Fraud Office complement for a doctor. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that each of the two cases to which he has referred was decided by the trial judge on the basis of medical evidence, including independent medical evidence.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in no position to comment on the decision of any judge. Let me say this, however. Mr. Justice Henry is no respecter of persons, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not become such a respecter of persons that he supposes that those two people were dealt with out of any consideration for who or what they were.

Law Reform

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the chairman of the Law Commission to discuss the Commission's programme for law reform.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Lord Chancellor has regular contact with the commission about all aspects of its work.

Mr. Fraser: How does the Lord Chancellor explain to the chairman of the Law Commission the Government's appalling record on matters of law reform? Since 1984, 22 Bills have not been acted on. What does that do for the morale of the Law Commission? Why do the Government not act on the huge injustices currently affecting business people, such as original lessee liability? Why have they such an appalling record when ready-made Bills are presented to them by the Law Commission?

The Solicitor-General: There are two answers to that question. First, the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the immense force of major legislation presented by the Lord Chancellor in the past three or four years—not least the Children Act 1989, which has entirely restructured the law on children and paved the way for the


family court, and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, one of the most important pieces of legislation in this field to appear for decades.
The House of Commons will need—and the other place will wish—to examine the recommendations of Lord Jellicoe for new procedures to bring such comparatively uncontroversial measures before both Houses more swiftly.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

CIS (Aid)

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest figures for aid and other financial support for the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Britain has pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to the former Soviet Union and is contributing through the EC budget about 18 per cent. of Community technical assistance and food aid which totals £595 million. The Community has also agreed a programme of food credits worth £1,225 billion.

Mr. Bowis: With other hon. Members, I recently visited Russia and the Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we returned with an impression of economic chaos—and the impression that, although aid from this country and others is welcomed, it is feared that too much is being siphoned off on to the black market? Above all, the need is for the west to encourage economic development trade with export credits and, indeed, joint ventures such as the one that we saw with one firm—Tambrands—in Kiev.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the former Soviet Union and all the republics are ever to put the situation right, the most urgent job is to bring about economic reform. That is why we have ensured, through our know-how funds and all the other means at our disposal, that we are providing economic advice and sound advice for training members of the former republics to get on with the job of economic reform.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the siphoning off of food aid. I have said from the beginning that we and other donors, including the European Community, must have arrangements to guard against misappropriation. That is why, to date, food has been available through only a limited number of channels. I have pressed the EC, however, and we have now secured agreement that it will expand the number of outlets in Moscow and St. Petersburg from the 60 shops that were operational in January and February to 150. Later this week, further missions will be sent from the EC and from this country to ensure that food is getting through.
It is interesting to note that other countries are now copying our know-how funds because they have been of such help to the former Soviet Union and other eastern European countries.

Mr. Winnick: I was on the same delegation to Russia and the Ukraine. Would it not be very short sighted of the western democracies—not simply Britain—to allow the countries which now make up the Commonwealth of Independent States to drift into such a state of anarchy that a dictatorship could well return? Given the 74 years of

Communist dictatorship and the long period of Tsarist dictatorship before that, is it not essential to provide aid and assistance so that at long last Russia and the countries associated with the former Soviet Union can become stable democracies?

Mrs. Chalker: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says. That is why Britain was the first country to give £20 million worth of feed grain. Medical supplies are going in from this country not only to help Moscow and St. Petersburg, but to go as far as Ekaterinburg, Tymen, Novokuznetsk, the Kiev oblast, the Donetsk oblast, and further afield. We have help going in alongside the United States and German Project Hope airlift, and we have £50 million for the know-how fund. Everywhere we go, we have been told that the British help is extremely well appreciated. We are considering what more we can do and it is up to some other donors to do likewise.

Mr. Soames: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her excellent work in co-ordinating the aid, but does she agree that the words of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) are correct? We need a kind of Marshall plan which will bring to those poor suffering countries aid such as was brought to continental Europe when it lay prostrate at the end of the second world war. Is it not time that we tried to co-ordinate an effort on that basis to enable the Soviet Union to pick itself up and start taking a proper role in the world economy?

Mrs. Chalker: The size of the problem is comparable, but I do not believe that the post-war reconstruction programme in Europe is a good model for what is required in the Commonwealth of Independent States. More than anything else, the CIS needs economic and agricultural reform. The responsibility for that lies not with the west, but with the CIS itself. Through our International Monetary Fund membership, we have pushed forward the idea that the CIS countries should come under the IMF. In Moscow tomorrow we shall discuss with the Russian authorities the way forward on a number of difficult economic questions.

Mrs. Clwyd: I listened to the Minister's words with interest. Is she aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I visited Moscow last week and questioned Russian officials about food aid, we found stacked away in a third-floor warehouse what we were told was the whole British contribution of beef to Moscow, which had been there for a month? We were told that the reason for that outrageous situation was that, unlike the meat from all the other EC countries, our consignment was not colour coded. The labels were in English and no one could read them. Downstairs in the warehouse, French pork was being offloaded from vehicles and immediately reloaded for distribution in Moscow shops.
When we asked Russian officials whether the beef was having any impact on meat prices in Russia, we were told that it was not. As the Minister said, there are too few outlets, which she intends to do something about. There is also a shortage of EC monitors. Does the Minister intend to increase the number of monitors? Are we not faced with the same old story of a badly managed project with inadequate monitoring—in other words, Government incompetence?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady could not be more wrong. Of course I am aware of what she found in Moscow. The beef that went to Murmansk was used immediately, and the beef that has gone to St. Petersburg has been used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Moscow."] I know that there has been a problem with beef in Moscow. I also know that the EC arrangements for labelling were not adequate. That is why the goods for which we are responsible are being labelled in Russian when they go to the former Soviet Union. We have asked the Commission for greater consistency in labelling and colour coding for the beef, and we have told Moscow that it is vital that the meat is released on to the market straight away. The problem is not the incompetence of this country. The EC simply had not got matters organised. The way in which we put our food over there actually got it to the places for which it was intended.

Refugees

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees over the last month.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs called on Mrs. Ogata in Geneva on 29 January. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State also had discussions with Mrs. Ogata on 7 February. My officials are in regular contact with UNHCR and I shall welcome Mrs. Ogata to London again in a fortnight's time.

Mr. Wareing: When the discussions took place with the UNHCR, did the problem of the Kurds come up? On 25 June last year the Prime Minister said:

We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq."—[Official Report, 25 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 856.]
Is the Minister satisfied that those humanitarian needs have been met and are being met, or that they can be met so long as there is a risk to the Kurdish population from the evil dictator in Baghdad? What do the British Government intend to do to ensure that the Prime Minister's promise of last June is upheld?

Mrs. Chalker: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in June last year, the UNHCR was well on the way to meeting the humanitarian needs of the Kurdish people. Since then, and particularly in the past three months, the economic blockade of northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein has prevented the UNHCR from doing as much as it would like to do. We have made sure that we get on with as much as we can get through in our help for Iraq through UNHCR, but there is one man—and one man only—who stands in the dock for the denial of resources to the northern Iraqi people, and that is Saddam Hussein. Until United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 are implemented, we cannot relieve the plight of all those people.

Sir Philip Goodhart: As the contribution of Britain to the UNHCR is very much greater than that of France or Germany, will my right hon. Friend encourage our European partners to increase their support for the vital work of refugee relief?

Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, our contribution to the UNHCR this financial year totals some £40 million. I have asked that the United Nations hold a conference this month to ensure that the UNHCR's vital work continues not only in Iraq but in helping all the people who so desperately need our assistance.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement? I raise this matter because it has been reported that four patients under the care of the hospital trust of Guy's and Lewisham have died because there was no money to pay for their continued heart surgery. That has been confirmed by Dr. Graham Jackson, a consultant at Guy's, who is a member of the Conservative party. We have just rightly dealt—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Winnick: The point of order is that it is an urgent matter that four people have apparently died as a result of the failure of the reorganisation of the health service. As a matter of urgency, I am asking you whether the Secretary of State for Health can be brought to the House to make a statement by 7 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that was a good try but that it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that, at last Thursday's business questions, I asked the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about the changes that they propose to make to renovate and improve the A1. This morning, a press conference was held in Edinburgh. [Interruption.] My point of order is this. When the Government are in control of a press conference, they can leak in advance the contents of such a statement, whereas, if they were brought to the House to make a statement, it would be a contempt to do so. Have you no control as Speaker to lay down some guidelines for any predecessor to control such occurrences in future?

Mr. Speaker: Well—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman meant "successors". I have had no request for such a statement. I heard what was said at business questions, but, of course, if we had to have a statement on absolutely everything that happened to every road in the country, we would not get very far down the Order Paper.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you see the sad story this weekend about an eight-week-old child who was refused admission to the Royal Bristol hospital for sick children because the surgeon insisted on a promise that funding would be available before he treated that baby? Subsequently, the baby died. Is it not absolutely right that we should discuss such cases in the House, and that the Secretary of State should make a statement by 7 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not see that report, because I paid a happy visit to the Principality of Wales and therefore did not have the opportunity to see the newspapers. That is the sort of subject that could well be raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday you were in the Chair when the Minister of Agriculture made a statement on decommissioning. Do you intend to make a statement

about what happened, in the light of the precedent that appeared to be set, whereby on one day a written answer is given in Hansard, which no one sees, and the next day you feel obliged to allow a private notice question? If you were not to make a statement deprecating that as a procedure, surely it has major implications for the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member knows that the Speaker is specifically enjoined never to give any reasons for his decisions. I granted that private notice question on Friday, and I was present for the proceedings.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I went for a ball of chalk down the Mile End road this morning in my new whistle and saw a poster being put up which said that when Labour is elected it will deliver a "double-whammy". You ruled out Cockney rhyming slang earlier in our proceedings. First, do you know what a double-whammy is, and secondly will you make it clear that, if Cockney rhyming slang is banned in the House, Americanisms that have been imported for use during the election will also be banned?

Mr. Speaker: I am not an expert in rhyming slang and I have no idea what a "wham" is. Certainly, if it is in the Old Kent road or wherever, it is not raised in this Chamber.

BILLS PRESENTED

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

Mr. Michael Shersby, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Dr. John Blackburn and Sir Anthony Durant, presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1982 so as to apply certain provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 to imitation firearms which are capable of firing blank ammunition; to make provision for the issuing of permits for such weapons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

NEWSPRINT RECYCLING

Mr. Harry Cohen presented a Bill to provide for a minimum content of recycled paper in newsprint produced in or imported into the United Kingdom; to impose a duty on the publishers of newspapers to use newsprint with a minimum content of recycled paper; to empower the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for the recycling of newsprint; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

Statutory Instruments &c.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two Questions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 273) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.


That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument,, &amp;c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Home Secretary to move the motion, I must tell the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper. However, the arguments which are advanced in them may be canvassed during the debate.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8810/91, relating to the right of asylum and 8811/91, relating to immigration and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 27th February 1992; endorses the Government's view that harmonisation of substantive immigration and asylum policies among the Member States of the European Community should be taken forward inter-governmentally outside the Treaty of Rome; and welcomes the wide recognition of this principle at Maastricht.
I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to discuss immigration and asylum issues within the Community and to explain the objectives that the Government are pursuing in this area.
It is right that Europe should be concerned—and collectively concerned—about increasing immigration pressures, which almost every member of the Community faces, and that collectively we should look for common solutions in Europe.
We only have to look at the problems which we and our European partners are facing with asylum to see the scale of those pressures. The number applying for asylum in Europe rose from 64,000 in 1983 to half a million last year. In the United Kingdom, it has increased tenfold in the past three years, to 45,000 principal applications last year. Well over 90 per cent. of those are people already within the borders of Europe when they apply for asylum. Many have arrived illegally. Fewer than a fifth are found to be genuine refugees. In Germany—with its large number of eastern European applicants—the proportion is as low as 3 per cent.
This is a European problem. Germany last year had 250,000 applications for asylum; France, 46,000; and Italy, 30,000. The uncontrolled mass movement of people is one of the biggest problems facing the world today. All hon. Members will be aware of the political consequences in Europe. In Germany, we have seen attacks on asylum seekers and the rise of the extreme right. In France, again, there has been unrest in many major cities and an undoubted surge in support for the National Front. In Austria, a party won nearly 25 per cent. of the vote on the slogan, "Vienna for the Viennese". In Belgium, a similar movement, gaining similar support, has emerged in Flanders. All these movements thrive upon the racism and nationalism aroused by large numbers of asylum seekers.
I am absolutely determined that we should not give any encouragement to the rise of the extreme right in Britain. This is fertile ground for its extreme racialist policies. To remove the circumstances in which it could flourish, action has to be taken to deal with the problem. We have to show that we are dealing urgently, energetically and firmly with the manifest abuse of our system. We have therefore taken the following action.

Mr. Tony Banks: Clearly, the Home Secretary would not want fascists, whether in this country or the rest of Europe, to dictate our actions in this


House. If we are talking about removing the reason why asylum seekers come to the west, surely we should not put restrictions on them, but should do something about the economic circumstances of their countries, so that they have no wish to come to the west. Is not that the way of dealing with the problem?

Mr. Baker: A large part of our aid programme is directed towards doing that, but one must be realistic. The difference in the economic performance between much of the third world and Europe is large, and the gap is likely to remain large for many years to come. Europe will continue to be a magnet for many people from the third world. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point that it is part and parcel of our policy to increase our aid to the most under-privileged and poorest parts of the world to ensure that people stay there and resolve their economic problems. Nevertheless, it is also necessary for us to take action in this country.

Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend mentioned aid and assistance. Could he and Her Majesty's Government recognise that local authorities, such as mine and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) face particular problems, as Hillingdon borough contains Heathrow airport, the biggest port of entry into the United Kingdom, and many scores of refugee children are literally dumped there? We require national assistance to finance looking after them.

Mr. Baker: I am glad to say that the numbers of unaccompanied children have fallen substantially. My hon. Friend will recall that the Asylum Bill makes specific provision on housing to help local authorities that face inordinate pressure—I accept that they do face inordinate pressure—as a result of the influx of refugees.

Mr. Michael Shersby: My right hon. Friend talks about housing. Is he aware that the problem is one of child care? Is he aware that the cost to the local authority, which is running at about £1 million a year in Hillingdon, is for specialised child care on a one-to-one basis? It is not so much a question of housing as of providing foster children parents and child care.

Mr. Baker: The matter was debated at length both on Second Reading and in Committee on the Asylum Bill. We are aware of the problem. Some assistance is available to local authorities. I am glad to tell the House that the number of unaccompanied children, which was extremely high in 1990, has dropped.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I want to press the Home Secretary on resources. He said that he was aware of the problem and wanted to provide assistance. It is now clear that some provisions of the Bill, by driving local authorities to use bed-and-breakfast accommodation rather than to provide housing, will turn out to be more expensive for local authorities. Does he intend to make a recommendation that overcomes the mistake that appears in the Bill on that point?

Mr. Baker: No, I do not intend to change the Bill in that regard. The Bill will restrain the number of people who come to this country as asylum seekers. That must be

the main thrust of the Government's policy and of any party's policy. The constant pressure of numbers coming in all the time must be addressed.
The Government have brought in a policy that consists of five different strands. First, the number of staff in the asylum determination division in Croydon has been increased, and we now have nearly 400 more than a year ago to cope with the increased numbers. Secondly, we have sent document specialists out to airports around the world to train airport staff and immigration staff to try to ensure that people without the proper documentation are prevented from getting on planes. Thirdly, over the next few years, we will increase the number of detention places in the United Kingdom at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted from 226 by 290. Fourthly, we have increased the enforcement staff of the immigration service to deal with those who are returned to their own countries.
Fifthly, we have introduced the Asylum Bill, the main principles of which are well known to the House, so I will not re-argue them today. The Bill will streamline the handling of claims to a period of 12 weeks instead of two to three years, and provide additional appeal rights as a safeguard. It will also introduce a power to fingerprint asylum seekers, which is a power that most of our European partners already have. That is an essential check to deal with fraudulent multiple applications. The Asylum Bill has a crucial part to play.
The Bill is now before the House of Lords and the Government are committed to seeing it become law. Its provisions are urgently needed, so that asylum does not become a back door to immigration. They are needed to protect the genuine refugee. Not least, they are needed to ensure that we do not face the wave of anti-refugee and anti-immigrant feeling which has swept across Europe over the last few years.
Misuse of asylum must not be allowed to overturn two decades of progress in achieving harmonious race relations in this country—something of which all parties can be proud. If the Asylum Bill does not become law in this Parliament, the Government will reintroduce it as soon as possible in the next Parliament.
The problem of multiple applications for asylum and for social security has now reached quite unacceptable levels. Only last week, an asylum seeker was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for having made 40 applications for social security benefit as an asylum seeker. That is not an isolated case. There have been other convictions, and a number of cases are awaiting trial. Last week, nine people were arrested in connection with similar frauds. Many more cases are suspected.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary is repeating a litany of complaints about a minority of asylum seekers and the allegations made against them. Instead of that, would he turn his attention to the plight of people who have come here, are divided from their families and unable to achieve family reunion, such as the Kurdish people who came from Turkey two years ago? Will he adopt a more humane and sympathetic approach towards asylum seekers rather than searching for every opportunity he can to criticise them for being victims of the most appalling aggression in their countries in the first place?

Mr. Baker: Until the status of a refugee applicant is determined and he is accepted as a refugee, that person


does not have the right to family reunion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our efforts, as we are increasing the number of staff and changing the procedures so that the process of determination can be speeded up. That is the most important thing that we can do. If, as a result of the Asylum Bill, we can determine cases within 12 weeks, that will be an enormous improvement on the two to three years during which such cases can drag out.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: We are talking about relatively small points. If it is held by the European Court of Justice that control of immigration is a matter for the European Community, none of those points will be of any significance. Will my right hon. Friend please deal with the central point: what is the Government's argument as to the status of this policy? If it be that the European Court of Justice rules against us, what will the Government's attitude be to that interference in our domestic affairs?

Mr. Baker: I ask my hon. Friend to bide his time for a moment, because I shall deal with those precise points in the course of my speech. I am dealing first with the issue of asylum, and I shall come on—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when he comes to it?

Mr. Baker: I shall signal it in such a way that it is quite clear to my hon. Friends that I have reached that exact point in my speech.
I was considering the abuse of multiple applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen) should appreciate that that is not a minor matter but one involving considerable fraud. Since November, all those who applied for asylum by post to Croydon have been asked to attend an interview. So far, out of 4,628 who have been called to initial interview, 3,807 have failed to turn up—that is 82 per cent.
The measures that we are taking will have a major effect on reducing the type of fraud that has come to be associated with asylum seeking. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security shares my concerns on that issue. In line with his long established policy to deter fraudulent claims, he will shortly introduce a change in the method of income support to asylum seekers. Their order books will be restricted to six weeks instead of six months, and will be encashable at one nominated post office only. For the bona fide asylum seeker, that will not be a hardship, but it will act as a deterrent for those intent on fraud. I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend mentioned those who fail to turn up. He may have noticed that Liberal Democrat Members have failed to turn up to listen to this debate. He will recall that a majority of them voted against the Second Reading of the Asylum Bill. Is he not distressed to see that those who have an open-door policy on this issue and oppose the Government's policy are not even here to listen to the debate?

Mr. Baker: Yes, their absence indicates an absence of policy on this matter. They certainly have an open-door policy on the issue.
Before I go any further, it may help the House if I explain briefly the status of the Commission communications on immigration and asylum, which the Scrutiny Committee has recommended for debate and to which the Motion refers. They are communications to the Council and the European Parliament. They are not proposals for Community action as such: nor are they likely to be the subject of specific decisions in the Community law framework. They were prepared as discussion papers for use in the preparations for the Maastricht summit.
The Luxembourg European Council in June 1991 decided to seek greater harmonisation of member states' immigration and asylum policies. Since then, there have been two further major developments.
First, the Immigration Ministers' meeting in the Hague in December 1991 agreed on a work programme for discussing, and, where appropriate, harmonising, immigration and asylum policies. That work programme, which was approved by the Maastricht European Council, sets the agenda for work on those issues in the period ahead —including the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community in the second half of 1992.
Secondly, the treaty on European union, agreed at Maastricht in December in December and signed on 7 February, sets a framework for consideration by the member states of immigration and asylum issues, along with other "Interior and Justice" issues.
During the Maastricht negotiations, a number of our partners pressed hard for immigration and asylum matters to be taken into Community competence under the treaty of Rome. That would have made them subject to Community legislation and to the jurisdiction of the European Court. We were not prepared to agree to that. We took the view that policies that determine whether non-EC nationals are to be allowed to live and work in a member state are matters of considerable domestic sensitivity and essential national importance, on which each member state has its own traditions and constitutional framework.
In the event, as the House will know, only two immigration matters will be taken into Community competence: first, a substantive one—the common visa list —which is the agreement on the countries whose nationals would require visas for entry to the Community: and secondly, the more technical question of the format of a common visa. All other aspects of immigration and asylum policy will fall within the procedure for intergovernmental co-operation under the interior and justice chapter of the new treaty.
We have agreed with our European partners that no other matters relating to immigration and asylum will be transferred to Community competence unless two things happen—that constitutes a double lock: first, a unanimous decision in the Council of Ministers—which means that the British Government can veto any proposal; secondly, the approval of each of the national Parliaments. We have agreed to consider at the end of 1993 whether asylum policy should be so transferred. If a transfer were to be proposed, it would be subject to that double lock.

Dr. Norman A. Godman:: The Secretary of State has just used the term "non-European Community national". Will he confirm that the immigrant worker long domiciled in, say, France, or the gastarbeiter equally long domiciled in Germany, is defined as a non-European Community national? Most of


the racist attacks that have taken place in those two countries have been focused on those people. Are they to be denied the status of free movement throughout the European Community that, I understand, is to be given to the nationals of the countries of the European Free Trade Association in relation to the European economic area?

Mr. Baker: I am coming directly to that point, and I think that what I have to say will answer the hon. Gentleman's question relating to the movement of non-EC nationals across frontiers.
I was emphasising to the House the existence of the double lock for the transfer of asylum and immigration matters into the competence of the Community. In that respect, as in others, the outcome of the Maastricht summit represents a highly satisfactory outcome for this country.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way; I think it may be better to clear up a jurisdiction matter now. He may know that the Under-Secretary has written a helpful memorandum dated 27 February on the arrangements for the movement of EEC nationals within the single market from January 1993, particularly the arrangements under article 8A, soon to be 7A, which require the absence of frontiers.
Paragraph 10 of the memorandum states that the Government
does not regard this step"—
a single market—
as being required for the completion of the Single European Market and does not propose that the United Kingdom should adopt such a course
that course being free movement through an airport without any examination. That is undoubtedly the Government's view, but is it the view of the Commission and the European Court?

Mr. Baker: I am coming to that point, which has already been raised.
I want to emphasise the legal position on jurisdiction, but first I wish to stress that the way forward in such matters—which will be the case as a result of Maastricht is through intergovernmental co-operation. Such co-operation gives us considerable protection.
An ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers and officials has been working on the issue since 1986. Its most important product so far has been the draft external frontiers convention. That is a major piece of work that sets common standards for controls at the Community's external frontiers and for visas for short stays. It also provides for the sharing of information about serious and repeated immigration offenders. It affords the prospect of improved collective defences against illegal entry into the European Community. We shall press vigorously on our partners the importance of strengthening the Community's external frontiers.

Mr. Giles Radice: On the issue of short-stay visas, is it not true that this country has retained visas for Poland, but got rid of them for Czechoslovakia and Hungary, while Germany and France have abolished visas for Poland? It does not seem as though the policies are co-ordinated.

Mr. Baker: I have answered several letters and questions on the matter. Speaking from memory, I think that last year there were about 4,400 rejections of visa applications—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two thousand."] The point that I wished to make was that there were several thousand rejections, whereas the number on visa applications from Hungary and Czechoslovakia is about 20 per country. Therefore, for that reason we think that the visa control should stay for the time being.

Mr. Budgen: Is not the problem of nationality the fact that some countries, particularly France, had a system of dealing with former colonial territories by making them, in law, a part of metropolitan France? Therefore, the talk about external barriers does not assist us, as many of the people who come from, for example, North Africa are French citizens and, under EC legislation, may have to be dealt with on the same basis as people born and brought up in Paris.

Mr. Baker: The French nationality laws are much more complicated than that. Not all the people who come from the Maghreb and north African countries are entitled to French nationality and citizenship—

Mr. Budgen: But some are.

Mr. Baker: That is true. Those who come to France d'outre mer enjoy another status, and that is one of the problems in Europe. There is a great variety of nationality systems entitling people to citizenship. I have repeatedly told my counterparts in Europe—the Ministers of the Interior—over the past 18 months that, as a result of the problems that we have faced since the 1950s with immigration from the old Commonwealth, we have developed a series of controls and arrangements for determining nationality; they are sophisticated and complicated and, on the whole, effective—very much more effective than those in many other countries in Europe.
The amount of competence is limited. There is a double lock before other matters may move into competence, and the way forward is through intergovernmental cooperation. I have already cited the external frontiers convention. Another example is the Dublin convention, another valuable product of this process. It deals with the problem of so-called asylum shopping by setting out rules to determine which member state is to take responsibility for a given application. We plan to ratify it in the course of this year.
With this work programme agreed at Maastricht, we are moving into a new phase.

Sir Teddy Taylor: While my right hon. Friend is expressing these splendid sentiments—we know that he is fighting hard for Britain—would he think it fair to say that his interpretation of the double-lock mechanism from Maastricht means that article 8A does not apply to non-Community nationals who have entered legally? Would it not be fair to point out that that interpretation is energetically disputed by the Commission, particularly by Mr. Bangemann? Will he say before he sits down what the British Government intend to do if by chance the Commission wins the case and we are instructed that these reservations have been overtaken by the views of the Commission? This is desperately important for Britain.

Mr. Baker: The answer is in the part of my speech that I am trying to get to. I am on the threshold of it now.
As I said, work under intergovernmental co-operation is moving into a new phase. The immigration work programme is a comprehensive document covering virtually the whole range of immigration policy, from measures to counter illegal immigration to providing help to countries of origin—the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—and, an important issue for our ethnic minority communities, the enhancement of the position of third-country nationals with long-term residence. Probably the largest and most immediate task to which we have committed ourselves is the harmonisation of policies towards people seeking admission for stays longer than short visits. This work, together with the work programme on asylum, will be a major challenge for the United Kingdom presidency.
Bearing in mind this country's long experience of operating an effective control and the Government's firm but fair immigration policies, I believe that the United Kingdom has an important contribution to make to this work. In any process of harmonisation, there has to be an element of give and take, but I have no intention that we should agree to measures that would represent a significant loss in our present strict controls on immigration for settlement.
Finally, I should like to restate the Government's position on frontier controls. The communications that we are discussing are concerned with policies on immigration and asylum. Checks at frontiers bear on those policies, of course, and I think it important to set out the Government's view on them, particularly in the light of recent reported comments by the Commission.
We are well aware of the view that article 8A of the treaty of Rome requires member states to discontinue all controls at internal frontiers from 1 January 1993. We have repeatedly made it clear that that is not our view. We do not regard the abolition of all immigration controls at internal frontiers after 1992 as required for the completion of the single European market, and we do not propose that the United Kingdom adopt such a course. The Government have consistently said that immigration controls, for an island nation such as the United Kingdom, are most effectively operated at the point of entry, and we intend to continue to apply controls to all arriving non-EC nationals, including those arriving from other member states.
We do not seek to exercise substantive controls in respect of entry to the United Kingdom of EC nationals. They are asked to produce a passport or an identity card to show that they are EC nationals as they go through the EC channel.

Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that frontier controls are not very effective? We require a smart identity card that can be machine-read and is common throughout Europe. That would be the most effective control possible and would be far more effective than frontier controls.

Mr. Baker: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Our examination of the effectiveness of controls clearly leads us to the conclusion that the most effective way is to apply controls at the internal frontiers of the United Kingdom, at our ports and airports.
I have been asked to speculate about what would happen if there were changes and whether there are alternatives to internal controls. There are five. First,

legislation would be needed to impose heavy fines on employers who employ immigrants without permission. Secondly, there would be more systematic checks on such companies and more unannounced visits. Thirdly, there would be a more systematic check before granting access to social security and state benefits. The fourth alternative is identity cards, and the fifth is random checks on people who are already in the country.
Other countries apply some or all of those controls, but they have not proved very effective in checking illegal immigration. For example, the United States has checks on employment and heavy penalties for companies that employ illegal immigrants, but those controls have not stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants who come from Mexico every night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked about identity cards, and I know that he has pursued that topic in the Select Committee. Various countries have identity cards, but they are not generally used systematically to identify a person's national status. An identity card system would have to be universal and as forgery-proof as possible. There would have to be a careful definition of the identity card's function to establish the immigration status of the cardholder. Any system would have to set out clearly the occasions on which people could be asked to produce an identity card.
From what I have said, it is clear that any alternatives to internal frontier controls would be expensive and cumbersome to operate, and would certainly be a major departure from the way in which we have traditionally operated in this country.

Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts that it is essential to maintain British frontier controls on those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from third countries and those who are not EC citizens. Does not the need to maintain sensible control also apply to EC residents and members as well? Are we simply saying that we are maintaining frontier controls for people who come from countries outside Europe, and that we have opened our frontier to 300 million Europeans without any check or control upon them?

Mr. Baker: That is the very issue that I am addressing. Perhaps I could return to the argument that I was advancing before my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth asked about identity cards.
I was emphasising that we do not seek to exercise substantive controls in respect of entry to the United Kingdom of EC nationals. They are asked to produce a passport or identity card to show that they are EC nationals. If there were no identity check at the EC Channel, it would be tempting for illegal immigrants to enter the United Kingdom in that way.
Even as it is, we detect a large number of forged documents. In the last quarter of 1991, of 934 forged documents detected by the immigration service, nearly a third were forgeries of EC documents. Most of these were being used by passengers in the EC channel. If they had not been required actually to show some means of identification, we certainly would not have been able to pick up those forgeries.
In signing and ratifying the Single European Act, which inserted article 8A into the treaty of Rome, the United


Kingdom Government had no intention of abandoning immigration control on third-country nationals arriving in the United Kingdom, including those arriving from other member states. In terms of the legal interpretation of article 8A, the Government rely on the final words of the article—
In accordance with the provisions of this Treaty"—
taken together with the general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act, which provides:
Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of member states to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries".
Our island geography enables us to place the main weight of our immigration control at the ports of entry. For us, this is by far the most effective way of doing it. It also means that we can avoid the need for intrusive forms of in-country controls—a subject on which I have just touched—such as sanctions on employers who employ illegal immigrants or identity cards or random police checks, which other countries without an effective means of controlling their borders find necessary.
When more and more people are wanting to move around the world, not just as visitors intending to return to their own countries but also with the intention of moving to, and staying permanently in, another country, we must not weaken our controls.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is there not a specific and immediate problem, and one that my right hon. Friend appears to have overlooked? It is that, in the present security emergency, there is a need for identity cards for British nationals, and for passports for those coming from the Irish Republic, because, with the free travel area that we have with the Republic of Ireland, people can come from there without the strict control that is so necessary.

Mr. Baker: Only a week ago, we debated the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which allows checks on travellers between the Republic of Ireland and our country. That is a separate matter.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Before he leaves this point, will my right hon. Friend return to the subject of Mr. Bangemann? I am sure that the House will warmly endorse the robust sentiments that my right hon. Friend has expressed about the need not to weaken the immigration checks or controls, but Mr. Bangemann has thrown down a gauntlet. He has said:
We will fight like lions against anyone violating these rules"—
he means his rules—and continues:
I will encourage EEC citizens to sue for damages against Governments which do not lift controls.
There is clearly a clash here. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has taken legal advice, and that he thinks that he will win any case fought in front of the European Court, and that he will continue this robust and admirable stance?

Mr. Baker: The rules are not Mr. Bangemann's rules. What he has said is his view of the interpretation of the rules. What I have expressed today is the collective and considered view of the Government on these matters. At the moment that interpretation is not being challenged. If it is, we shall defend our interpretation robustly.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it part of the legal advice that the Government have received on this matter that our case could be weakened if it were shown that we had a less effective or less strict form of control on the frontier with the Irish Republic than we operate on other internal frontiers with Community members?

Mr. Baker: No. The methods of control on movements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are determined by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is a separate consideration, and does not bear upon it.

Mr. Hattersley: I am very much on the Home Secretary's side in terms of competence and what the EC is entitled to do and not entitled to do. However, I hope that he will not overstate his case. Movement between the Irish Republic and Great Britain is determined not by the Act but by such factors as the treaties governing the Community and by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is only—how can I put it?—the icing on the cake.

Mr. Baker: Although there is an area of free movement, checks can be operated on certain travellers, and that is the important point. I am glad that we shall get some support from the Labour party, and I hope that we shall also have support in our interpretation of article 8A and its application to the movement across frontiers.
The House recognises that Europe is a magnet for the rest of the world, because of our living standards, our welfare system, our free speech, our access to justice, our open and democratic way of doing things. The living standards of Europe are infinitely higher than those of most of the rest of the world, and, to be realistic, are likely to remain so for a very, very long time to come. This inevitably makes Europe an immensely attractive place to live in.
Europe cannot be open house to the world. There are already millions of irregular immigrants in Europe. It is essential that all these problems are addressed and are dealt with. Otherwise, there will be all the political and social difficulties which we now see in some countries in Europe. At this moment of great uncertainty, I am sure that it is right that we should not weaken any of our existing controls. Indeed, we should strengthen them, as we are doing. If we did not do this, we would be betraying the basic interests of our country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, and if there are major interruptions during the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it will be difficult to call them all.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I wish to make it clear at the outset that it is my strongly held view that the two matters being discussed—the acceptance of asylum seekers into the United Kingdom and immigration policy in the United Kingdom—are essentially for the United Kingdom Government alone. In my view, they do not come within the competence of the European Community, and nor should they. The United Kingdom must exercise its own frontier controls and, as


the Home Secretary said, they must include the right to check on the entry of European Community nationals. If we were not able to do that, we would be unable to exercise any meaningful control.
I shall go slightly further, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with these matters when he replies. On many occasions I have expressed my concern in the House about what I can describe only as informal arrangements which amount to something very much like Community competence. I accept that, in the absence of a treaty obligation, such arrangements cannot be taken before a court and cannot be dictated by the Commission.
I fear, however, that, through the Trevi and Schengen agreements, there is a danger—the Home Secretary will be aware of it if he listens to me describing it—that Home Secretaries or ministers of the interior meet together in private, come to an agreement that they will impose their collective decisions on individual Parliaments and then use the majorities that they possess in those Parliaments to provide a pan-European solution to problems. As well as being opposed to any formal intervention or interference by the Community, we are opposed to the Schengen and Trevi technique of coming to an informal agreement that is then individually imposed.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am concerned inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman accepts the sovereignty of the European court interpreting the competence of the Commission. We understand clearly from the Commissioner's own words that the matter will come before the European Court at some stage for a decision. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman, having accepted the sovereignty of the court, is able to recognise the possibility that the court will not accept his interpretation, or that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the strong words that the House clearly accepts. What, then, is the policy? We have lost control over our borders, have we not?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is arguing—he is entitled so to do—the principles of membership of the European Community. When we accepted membership, with all that it implied, we also accepted jurisdiction on certain matters through the courts. The best advice available to the Opposition, like that available to the Government—this is one of the few things on which the Home Secretary and 1 will agree today—is that Community competence does not extend to these matters. I hope and believe that that is the position. I regard it as a necessary provision which enables us to maintain our own rights over our own border control, immigration policy and asylum policy.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary will appreciate that a point of major importance has been made. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the interpretation of article 8A, as enunciated by the Home Secretary—when taken with the other articles with which he and, I believe, the majority of hon. Members concur —is not acceptable in any case which comes before the European Court of Justice, the logic of such a position, if it were arrived at, would be the introduction of checks and identity cards? That would be wholly alien to the population of this country. It is a practice that is found elsewhere, but it would not be acceptable here.

Mr. Hattersley: I am wholly opposed to identity cards for reasons that I shall not go into today. I rely on the situation that my hon. Friend has described not arising. I believe that the best advice available to both sides of the House is that the independence of our decisions on these matters can be preserved.
Of the two communications, the one which concerns the right of asylum obviously possesses the special importance of, even now, being examined in this House, and is even now the subject of decisions which I hope that we shall soon take as to how the asylum laws and regulations are to be updated and improved. It is to that directive that I wish to devote most of the time at my disposal today, pausing only to say that, as the Home Secretary tells us that revision of this matter is an urgent necessity—a term that he used three times—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us why the Bill, which has passed through this House, has been held up for so long before being debated in the other place.
Before talking about asylum, I wish to spend a moment on the other directive—the directive concerning immigration. I repeat again my strongly held view that immigration must be a matter for determination by individual member states. There cannot be a common Community immigration policy mandatory on all Community members. I have read what the Commission has to say on the subject of co-operation between Community members, and I understand that in some ways that is desirable.
I was particularly attracted by what the Select Committee said about one aspect of co-operation—the need for common policies throughout the Community on family reunion—but the most urgent reform needed in British immigration law does not so much concern common policies uniform throughout the Community on family reunion as regulations uniform to all British residents in respect of family reunion.

Mr. Ashby: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of relaxing our firm but fair rules on immigration? How would he relax them, and how many additional immigrants would he allow to enter the United Kingdom under such relaxed rules?

Mr. Hattersley: That shows every sign of being a carefully prepared question and it possesses all the subtlety of Conservative central office. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, he will find that I shall answer all those questions. I suspect that, when he was primed, he was told to intervene rather later in my speech. If he can abide in patience for a moment or two, he will hear exactly what I have to say on the subject.
I was referring to the necessity for a United Kingdom immigration policy and policies concerning family reunion which are uniform for all residents in and citizens of the United Kingdom. I will remind the House how the present situation works. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) clearly makes a study of .such matters, and it will be of particular interest to Conservative Members who have always taken a robust view on the right of the British citizen in England as distinct from Community rights.
At present there are absurd anomalies which discriminate against British citizens. If an Englishman living in England marries a foreign national, his wife does not have the automatic and unqualified right to join him


in this country. If a German living in England or, for that matter, a Greek, Spaniard, Dane, Belgian or Dutchman, marries a foreign national, that citizen of the Community has the right for his wife automatically and without qualification to join him in this country. However, if a British citizen goes and lives in Germany, he possesses the right for his third-country nationality wife to join him in Germany. He possesses rights which he does not possess in his homeland—the land of his birth, the United Kingdom. That seems to be a simple absurdity.

Mr. Budgen: Why?

Mr. Hattersley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is surprised to hear that. An Englishman should possess the rights in England that a German possesses in England. It is preposterous to say that Germans can do things here which are denied to English citizens. If the hon. Gentleman wants to defend that proposition, I will give way.

Mr. Budgen: Undoubtedly the procedures are not common or particularly logical, but they arise from the circumstances of each nation state having to come to terms with the historical obligations that it has given to various citizens. It is better for a legislature to keep muddling along and doing the best that it can in the circumstances rather than having a thoroughly defective, if logical, overall solution.

Mr. Hattersley: The phrase "to keep muddling along" seems a good way of describing a system which allows European foreign nationals privileges that are not available to the British. I make no bones about the intention of the next Labour Government to end that kind of anomaly. In short, British citizens have fewer rights now in the United Kingdom than other Community nationals, and more rights in the Community than in the United Kingdom. That absurd anomaly will be rectified by the next Labour Government.

Sir Timothy Raison: The right hon. Gentleman said that the right of foreigners to bring their non-national wives here derives from the fact that that is Community and not domestic law. It is not strictly the case that Community immigration law is concerned only with Community nationals. It extends in this case to their families. The right hon. Gentleman says firmly that if a Labour Government came to power, they would end that anomaly. I am not sure how, because it is hard to see how they could force other member states to change their policies.

Mr. Hattersley: The present law states that we can treat our own citizens as badly as we like, but we must treat Community citizens rather better. I believe that it is important to treat our own citizens as well as we treat Community citizens.

Sir John Wheeler: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that a future Labour Government, if elected, would abolish the primary purpose rule? If so, they would take away the central plank of our immigration controls. What would the right hon. Gentleman wish to see put in its place?

Mr. Hattersley: A rule that would enable an immigration official to make an objective and clearly described judgment as to whether a marriage was genuine or bogus.

Sir John Wheeler: That is the primary purpose rule.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand how the rule works. It requires an immigration officer to read the mind of an applicant. I am opposed to laws which require officials to read the minds of British citizens. There should be clearly determined rules to show whether a marriage is bogus or genuine according to accepted criteria. We shall, of course, keep parties to bogus marriages out of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and rather more calmly than the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), by applying objective rules rather than by allowing officials to pretend to be able to read applicants' minds.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important statement. He owes it to the House and to the country to explain the magic of the objective rules that he mentions. What objective rules could determine whether or not a marriage is genuine? I have seen how our entry clearance officers deal with such matters at their posts overseas. They take difficult decisions with great care. If the right hon. Gentleman has some magic objective rules, let us hear about them. The clear advice that I received was that if the rules or procedures are varied there would be a substantial inflow of fiancées into this country.

Mr. Hattersley: That is not happening in other countries. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example of a rule change that I regard as absolutely essential. The Kumar judgment says that a man can be refused entry to this country because the immigration authorities doubt the genuineness of his marriage. The courts ruled that if a man showed continued devotion over a period of years, that ought to be taken as evidence that his was a genuine marriage. Cases are being taken to court time and again. The courts are accepting the previous ruling of the High Court and the Lords of Appeal—against the will, objections, and postponements of the Home Office. That is the kind of change that must be made.
Asylum is the central issue. As the Home Secretary knows, the next Labour Government will operate an asylum policy which will draw a sharp distinction between bogus and genuine asylum seekers. It will ensure that the genuine refugee finds a safe haven here, and will rigorously exclude the bogus applicant. I wish to deal with how that can best be done, referring specifically to a page in one of the two directives that have been drawn to our attention. The programme concerning asylum policy is dealt with in chapter 4, entitled "Work": the reference number is SN 4038/91 (WGI 930).
That page of the document deals with all the policies which have been proposed by the Government and examined by the House over the past year, and have been enshrined—more or less—in the Asylum Bill. When we discussed the Bill. I said—I am happy to repeat it today —that the exclusion of bogus applicants was a sensible and honourable objective. That was my view then, and it remains my view.
When we last discussed the matters described in the document, the Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment


in an attempt to explain how we believed that asylum policy should be operated. We feared then—together with the Churches, the General Council of the Bar, and the Law Society—that the genuine asylum seeker would be excluded, and we were right to express that fear. Our concerns were intensified by the behaviour of the Home Secretary, who sought to deal with the real problem in terms of party advantage and has continued to do so today.
I do not refer only to the pleasure—indeed, glee—with which the right hon. Gentleman has described every hypothesised fraud; he made one comment that struck me as disgraceful. Heaven knows, it is not my task to defend the Liberal Democrats, but when that party was mentioned, the Home Secretary said, "Of course, we all know that they support an open-door policy." That is a simple slander, and for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss matters in such terms does no credit to him or to the debate.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: My absence from that debate—in which I would have sought to rebut the Home Secretary's slanderous suggestion—was due to the difficulty that I had experienced in establishing contact with the right hon. Gentleman's office to discuss the Representation of the People Act. I think that, once again, he is misleading the House.

Mr. Hattersley: I repeat that the Home Secretary's attitude has not helped our attempts to achieve the good will, common sense and mutually agreed asylum policies that most European Community states have been able to maintain. It is possible that the Home Secretary wants the Asylum Bill to fail. If that is so, he can prevent its passage, but if it is so, let us have no more of the talk that we have heard today about an urgent measure which must be passed speedily.
The Home Secretary must decide whether he wants to make haste in obtaining an Asylum Bill which deals with bogus applicants but protects the geunine asylum seeker, or whether he wants to use the entire operation as an opportunity for what he sees—wrongly, in my opinion —as party advantage.
So that he may make progress, if he chooses to do so, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill which left the House of Commons was radically different from the Bill that received a Second Reading. The Government made five concessions, each representing a change for which the Opposition had asked. If the Home Secretary or any of his hon. Friends wishes to contest that statement, I will gladly give the Hansard references for each demand and each concession. Initially, however, I will simply list the five changes that the Opposition managed to bring about in Committee. I will deal a little later with a sixth change, which concerns the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison).
First, asylum seekers who arrive without documents, and who would originally have been assumed to be fraudulent applicants attempting to evade the regulations, will be able to advance reasonable explanations as to why their documents are deficient. That is now a part of the legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Perhaps I can save the right hon. Gentleman some time. That was never part of the Bill, and it is not part of the Bill now. There was a

reference to those matters in the draft rules that were issued for discussion along with the Bill. It became perfectly plain that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had chosen not to understand—or were somehow incapable of understanding—that such matters reflected on credibility, which demands that, if there is a satisfactory explanation, that too is taken into account. The only changes made were introduced so that even the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) could understand what the Government intended.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I should have referred to the rule rather than to the Bill. He is repeating exactly the words that he used to me on Third Reading. Before we demanded it, the provision was not in the rules. After we demanded it, it was in the rules. That is a concession.
Secondly, applicants will not, as was originally intended, have the actions of others held against them when they apply to remain here. Thirdly, oral hearings, which, according to the Home Secretary on Second Reading, were to be allowed only after the special adjudicator agreed, are now more easily obtained. Fourthly, the period allowed for lodging an appeal—[Interruption.] Talking Whips are always a disadvantage. The hon. Member at the Dispatch Box always says that if they want to say something they should say it, and that if they do not they should be quiet. The period allowed for lodging an appeal was originally totally inadequate, but it has now been extended to 10 days, with the small exception of people against whom the refusal notice is personally awarded.
The sixth concession—I think that it is a concession, although the Under-Secretary of State will no doubt be quick to advise me on that as well—seemed to be made at the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury. He asked that the original proposal for leave to remain if the asylum applicant was already here should not be removed that anyone with leave to remain who applied for asylum should not automatically have that leave to remain cancelled. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he accepted the principle of that proposition. It has not been incorporated through an amendment, but it is no doubt intended that it should be in another place.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I will not get up to correct the right hon. Gentleman every time he is wrong, or we should never get through the debate . My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) raised some interesting points about which he was concerned. We made no change to the Bill: the Bill used the word "may" and left the matter to the discretion of the Home Secretary —I merely described how the Home Secretary intended to exercise it.

Mr. Hattersley: That is exactly what I said. I conceded that the amendment had not been made, and I asked whether an amendment would be made in the House of Lords. I understand from the Under-Secretary's answer that such an amendment will not be made in the House of Lords.
Most importantly, the Government have been forced by their critics and by force of circumstances totally to reverse their policy on legal advice and legal assistance for and to asylum seekers. The House will recall that the Home Secretary made an announcement on 2 July, when he also announced the provisions of the Bill, that the


United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service was to become the sole provider of free advice and free representation. He announced that the green form scheme —legal aid—was to be withdrawn from such cases. It is now the Government's habit to say that the Home Secretary never made that announcement at all, and that he merely observed that he and the Lord Chancellor might possibly be thinking about it. The words make it clear that he intended to withdraw legal aid as the alternative provision of legal advice—the choice—which the asylum seeker might receive. That is no longer his intention. He has not merely changed his position: he has changed it diametrically—legal aid is available, the green form scheme is reprieved, asylum applicants will have a choice of legal adviser, and we rejoice in that change above all others.
There are other outstanding issues which must be examined if we are to have decent asylum policy which is agreed between the parties. Our first concern is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and its extension to transit passengers. We propose after the election—

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this another debate on the Asylum Bill or is it a debate on the European document?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have heard nothing out of order so far.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was not here when I referred to the paper which deals with all these matters in detail. Item IV of "Summary, work programmes and conclusion" deals with each of the items that I am now discussing.
I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Thanet, North and to others that it is our intention to reform and revise the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act after the general election. I will tell the Home Secretary at once what some of those changes should be.
First, it is clear that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has not worked. If it had worked, the immense increase in the number of asylum seekers to which the Home Secretary constantly draws attention would not have taken place. It is also clear that two major changes are necessary.
First, greater powers must be taken against those who organise and profit from illegal immigration—the entrepreneurs of illegal immigration. Secondly, we must end the preposterous practice of fining airlines, particularly British Airways, sometimes for carrying passengers who are eventually allowed into the United Kingdom by immigration officials. Lord King has expressed his view clearly to the Home Secretary that it is preposterous that British Airways, above all other companies, should bear a financial penalty for carrying passengers who are eventually allowed in.
We must also discuss some more fundamental questions of human rights and asylum. On Second Reading I described myself—Conservative Members will not be surprised to hear the description—as "ambivalent" about fingerprinting. I remain unashamedly ambivalent. My wish—indeed, my determination—to exclude bogus applicants and to prevent double applications makes me favour fingerprinting, but my reluctance to see asylum

seekers alone subjected to a process otherwise thought appropriate only for suspected criminals makes me oppose the scheme.
Fingerprinting raises a question about Europe. I understand from the documents—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer this question when he replies—that we have virtually committed ourselves to fingerprinting because that is the common policy in Europe and it is a way in which we can co-operate in Europe. I hope that we shall have a system of fingerprinting which applies only to those genuinely suspected of being bogus applicants and to those suspected of making multiple applications. As I understand it from the documents, we are now committed to fingerprinting everyone, including infants and babies. Is that the case? Does that seem reasonable?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: To make a change such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would do what some of his hon. Friends suggested that the provision in the Bill does: it would criminalise a category of asylum seekers, who would be fingerprinted not because we were comprehensively checking all asylum seekers, but only because we had some suspicion about their veracity. I can think of no more absurd suggestion in the light of the arguments made by the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends in Committee.

Mr. Hattersley: That is not the argument that my hon. Friends advanced to me. Will the Minister now answer the two questions that I asked? Have we agreed to universal fingerprinting as part of our obligation to Europe, and does the Minister suggest that we fingerprint children, infants and babies in arms?

Mr. Lloyd: No, we do not suggest that we should fingerprint babes in arms, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he had read the report of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. We are taking a power to fingerprint, not because the powers exist elsewhere—although, indeed, they do—but because it is clear from the problems that we have that it is a necessary measure which we ought to have on the statute book. If the right hon. Gentleman were ever to fill the place of the Home Secretary, he would regret that such a measure was not on the statute book before the election. I hope that he will help us to put it there.

Mr. Hattersley: This is becoming a strange debate, because the Under-Secretary of State persists in saying things which I can only describe as palpably untrue. It appears in the Hansard record that he regards it as necessary to fingerprint babies and infants.

Mr. Ashby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Italy has great problems with bogus asylum seekers and has a policy of fingerprinting all those who are rejected so that they can be identified when they make a further application? If that happens in other countries, why should we not do it in Britain?

Mr. Hattersley: As I said earlier, I do not believe that we have to do it simply because the rest of Europe does it. I thought that the hon. Gentleman agreed with that. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that such a policy is common European practice, he is taking the argument a stage further—in a direction which will not allow some of his hon. Friends to follow him.
I wish to deal with what I regard as the real sticking point in the Asylum Bill. There are problems with fingerprinting. There are problems with the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. There are problems with housing. But the real sticking point—the point that we could not accept, the point to which item 4 in the document is related and the one which is unacceptable to us—is the right of appeal. It ought to be the unqualified and automatic right of every asylum applicant for a refusal to be subject to appeal.
What we ask for and what ought to be the centre of any decent Bill which genuinely discriminates between the bogus and the genuine applicant, is exactly what the Home Secretary said on 2 July that he would provide. He said:
The Bill will make it clear that all those who are turned down in the determination process will be able to appeal while they are in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 166.]
He said nothing about the leave to appeal, nothing about the adjudicator deciding whether an appeal was possible, and nothing about an argument as to whether a second hearing was appropriate. He said on 2 July that asylum seekers already resident in Britain already enjoyed that automatic right and that it must be extended to all asylum seekers. To us, that is the essential element of a decent Bill.
We are less likely to send the wrong people back with an appeal system than without one. While I understand and support the need for speed, we cannot have speed which prevents genuine justice. There should be a full right of appeal exercisable in the United Kingdom. It must include an oral hearing. All applicants must be given 10 days in which to mount a case. That is the overriding requirement. It is more important than clause 7 and the carriers' liability Act and more important than clause 2 and fingerprinting, important though those issues are.
I believe, as I have always believed, that unanimity in the House on matters such as asylum is far better than contention. If the Secretary of State wants a Bill with the urgency that he continues to stipulate, he can have it so long as he makes those three concessions and justifiable variations. At least one of them is a variation which he announced in his opening statement but from which he later retreated.
I claim again that, if the Home Secretary wants the Bill to founder, the way in which it will founder will be through his being wholly inflexible and unreasonable. If he wants to make progress, he will accept those three requirements, make progress, maintain the Bill and its principles, and get it on the statute book in a reasonable time. I know that that is a stern test of the Home Secretary's integrity, and some will say that it is an unfair test to place upon him, but for once I am prepared to take him at his word. On 13 November, the Home Secretary said:
I am anxious to find common ground in the country on this matter and I suggest that it is important that common ground is found."—[Official Report, 13 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1086.]
I offer the Home Secretary the chance to find it. If he loses his way, he will have only himself to blame. There must be a new asylum Bill. It can be done decently. If the Home Secretary wants to work with us, we will help to make it the decent Bill that the country needs and wants.

Mr. Bob Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you have any power under the protocol of the House to point out to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) an

oversight? He promised to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). My hon. Friend asked the shadow Home Secretary to say whether his party intended to relax the immigration rules and, if so, in what way and what would be the impact of that on numbers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Sir John Wheeler: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and it is no less a pleasure this afternoon. However, I found the early part of his speech in particular somewhat reminiscent of one of those large rubber balls with which children are minded to play in school playgrounds. It reminded me of a ball filled with hot air that bounced all over the place without any clear sense of direction. His statement that if he were the Home Secretary in a Labour Government that Government would abolish the primary purpose rule is one of the most significant political statements to have been made. The primary purpose rule is an essential component of the control of immigration, especially that from the Indian sub-continent. Without it, this country would assuredly be the recipient—for perfectly understandable reasons—of significant numbers of would-be immigrants.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he would seek to substitute the primary purpose rule with what he called "objective" rules. I wonder what they are. I hope that he will give us the advantage of setting them out in writing so that the House and the nation can examine them. They will most certainly form part of the country's deliberations in the general election.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. Yes, it is a difficult Act to operate, but Home Office officials seek to advise and assist airline carriers and there are many cases, where a person has been brought into the United Kingdom and is subsequently allowed to remain here, when the carrier receives a refund from the Home Office for any financial penalty imposed upon it.
I am glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will be able to give qualified support to the Asylum Bill. That sits rather uncomfortably with the language that he used at the Labour party conference on 2 October last year, when he called the Bill a "squalid appeal to racism" and said:
We shall fight that proposal with the ferocity that conies from contempt".
It appears that he has had a significant change of heart. Perhaps it has something to do with the imminence of the general election.
Like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I shall consider the Commission's communication on immigration and I shall relate it to the work which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has done and the inquiry which it is undertaking into immigration controls at the external frontiers of the Community. I do not seek to prejudice any report that the Committee may eventually produce, but from the evidence that we have taken and visits that we have made, several important matters are clear.
No one can say with certainty to what immigration pressures the European Community will be subject in the


future. There are certainly demographic pressures, especially from north Africa, but we must beware the more lurid fears fostered by people such as Le Pen. In parts of Europe, racism and xenophobia are issues of great concern. Although we see no present evidence that those evils are increasing in this country, that is no cause for complacency.
Under the Maastricht treaty, the European Commission will have certain new limited powers over immigration Athough the Commission assured the Committee, during a visit to Brussels, that it did not wish to extend its competence, some member states and non-governmental organisations in this country want that to happen. It may be inevitable.
Under the external frontiers convention, there will be mutual recognition of visas granted by other member states, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already explained. It is hoped that that will bring other countries' standards on the issue of visas up to those of the United Kingdom. However, there is concern that individuals' rights—perhaps the right of appeal—will suffer as countries adopt the lowest common denominator of safeguards for would-be immigrants and the highest common denominator of control. There is little doubt that some nationals who do not need visas will be required to hold them in future.
The United Kingdom's present system of immigration control is based primarily on checks at the frontier. We are set on a collision course with Brussels over the continuation of those frontier controls on passengers arriving after 1 January 1993 from other EC states. The Government's interpretation of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act—that our present system of control can continue—is contested by the Commission. Our system relies on those frontier controls. They are especially appropriate on an island and are especially necessary because of the threat of terrorism. They bring other benefits to the police in the fight against crime. Other member states cannot so easily control their frontiers.
If the Commission's view prevails, the frontiers of other member states will become our frontiers and their problems will also become ours. The British people will regard such a development as extraordinary, as they see the United Kingdom for what it is—a series of islands, which ought to exploit that natural advantage with our existing airport and sea port controls. I have sometimes heard the comparison with the United States of America. The European Community cannot be compared with the USA. The way in which people are treated when they arrive in Hawaii, one of the 50 states, is not a suitable comparison with the way in which people are treated when arriving at Heathrow or Dover.
If we relax internal frontier controls, there will be a demand for compensatory measures. The Government have not formed any view on the nature and extent of those measures. Among such measures which will need discussion are identity cards and checks on people's immigration status by employers and the agencies paying them state benefits.
I am glad that the Association of Chief Police Officers, in giving evidence to the Committee, has confirmed that it is in favour of identity cards. I share its view for the

following reasons: the identity card is primarily a civil liberties document and gives certainty of identity to an individual and entitles him or her to travel freely within the European Community without let or hindrance; it offers the individual the opportunity to demand and receive services from the state; and it helps in the suppression of crime. For example, the banking industry loses about £0·25 billion a year through cheque card fraud because of the lack of any suitable bona fide identity card.
I agree with the Association of Chief Police Officers that if such a card is to serve the purpose of freedom
it should be the size of a normal credit card … be incapable of being forged: it should have a unique background and a computer-readable internal strip … it should be renewable at regular intervals … the individual's fingerprint should be included … the individual's place of birth and other suitable details should be included, including the National Insurance number".
We have had national insurance numbers for many decades in this country, but we do not exploit them to give people the services and advantages to which they are entitled.
I also agree with the association when it says:
the individual's photograph should be sealed into the card, which should be self-defacing if tampered with";
and:
the manufacture of the card should take into account current and developing technology".
If we adopt the identity card scheme, we shall not be alone within the European Community in having such a device. We shall have to decide whether it should be mandatory to carry it, and in what circumstances it should be produced for inspection. We should use the opportunity of our presidency of the European Community Commission to make progress on this matter urgently.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Gentleman suggested that one's national insurance number should be included on the proposed identity card. We all have a national health service number as well and the hon. Gentleman will know that, for those of us who are old enough, it was our national identity number during the war when we had national identity cards. Would he want to include that number also on the proposed card?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the present absurd position. We have a series of numbers. We have a number on a driver's licence. Now there is to be a driver's licence that includes a photograph. It will become the de facto identity card for those fortunate British citizens who happen to have a driver's licence. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a national health service number. There is also a national insurance number and a United Kingdom passport number. There are too many numbers. Few people remember any of them and they do not serve the best interests of British citizens. We should settle for one number and we should seize the opportunity to exploit that one number within the Community.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is making the case for a main identity card in the United Kingdom. Indeed, he has just said that we should exploit that at Community level. First, is that a personal view? Secondly, is he saying that we would solve the frontier problem which he mentioned earlier by granting freedom of entry and exit on production of such cards which would be valid throughout


the Community? Would the cards and their national variants then be virtually cards of European citizenship, if the Maastricht treaty is endorsed?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right. In previous reports, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended the adoption of a national identity card. We shall have to see what it will conclude in its report on this inquiry. It is my view—I believe that it is shared by many other members of the Committee, if not all—that we must grasp this opportunity and make progress. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that such an identity card would be the card of the European citizen. If the 350 million citizens of the European Community are to exploit the opportunities of being in the Community, they must have the certainty of identification. Other member states are already developing high-tech cards. The kingdom of Spain, for example, is working on one now. When we hold the presidency, we should lead the initiative in the interests of British citizens as well as those of the Community as a whole.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agred that there is nothing to prevent us from developing the card for considerable valuable use in this country, whether or not it ultimately becomes relevant within Europe? Many of his arguments are highly relevant in this country first.

Sir John Wheeler: The arguments for the ca rd are primarily those of civil liberties and the right to receive services. Imagine a pensioner or a recipient of social service benefits who possessed such a card. It would render an entitlement by electronic technology without the argument and debate that is so often the case now. It would be efficient and effective as a tool for delivering rights and services to individuals. It would have the secondary purpose of being the European Community travel passport and means of identity. Therefore, it would solve a number of problems. I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Wheeler: I should like to make farther progress.
I want to continue for a moment on compensatory measures. British airports and sea ports and air and sea carriers are not prepared for the potential changes that would be necessary if the Government's view of the controls permitted at the internal frontier does not prevail. The changes will be costly. Irrespective of decisions about our frontiers, money will need to be spent on improving the control of the external frontier elsewhere in the Community and on improving visa-issuing procedures by some other member states. Important issues are at stake. They need full discussion in Parliament and in the country.
I am glad that the Select Committee on European Legislation has recognised the importance of these proposals. I look forward to a more detailed examination of immigration in the European Community context in Committee and in the Chamber in the near future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When I sought to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), I wished to ask him whether I was right in presuming that the

identity card would be extended to citizens of European Free Trade Association countries vis-a-vis the European economic area agreement.
These documents prompt several questions which I hope that the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. The supplementary explanatory memorandum states:
the Community has competence in relation to rights of free movement and residence under the Treaty of Rome and has issued a number of directives and regulations governing the exercise of those rights.
However, it continues:
Under Article 100C, a new provision to be inserted into the Treaty of Rome by the Treaty on European Union, the Community will also have competence over the determination of the non-Member States whose nationals are to be subject to a visa requirement.
I know that that requirement will be subject to the ratification of this Parliament together with the other 11 Parliaments, but we seem to be shifting towards giving competence to the European Commission and taking it from national states.
Hon. Members who sought to talk about the implementation of the principle of subsidiary missed the boat. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that the concept of subsidiarity—perhaps I should say, the doctrine of subsidiarity—is worthless where Community officials are concerned, in terms of devolving political power to national legislatures, and even further to regional and local government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talked about some measures being given strength by unanimous support in the House of Commons. I remind the House that we gave unanimous support to the Bill that became the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. One of its most important sections was overturned or suspended by an interim judgment of the President of the European Court of Justice sitting on his own. In other words, an Act of Parliament, passed with support from both sides of this House, was overturned by the President of that court. I suspect that we might have a similar position here.
The European Community documents refer, among other things, to free movement of European Community nationals throughout the Community. The documents precede the European economic area agreement, so will the Minister confirm that the right of movement and travel will be extended to citizens of the 19 countries of the European economic area?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: indicated dissent.

Dr. Godman: I notice that the Minister is shaking his head. Is he saying that, as a result of that agreement, the citizens of the seven EFTA countries will not enjoy the rights outlined in article 8A and in articles 48 to 59? It seems to me that there is a case for suggesting that the citizens of the 19 countries will be given that freedom.

Mr. Lloyd: The treaty of Rome confers rights of movement on the nationals of EC countries, but it does not confer those rights on those who are not EC nationals.

Mr. Spearing: Not at the moment.

Dr. Godman: I note my hon. Friend's remark, but I am seeking to establish that the rights of movement contained in article 8A are confined to EC nationals and that thecitizensof the seven EFTA nations will not be given those rights under the terms of the European economic area agreement.

Mr. Lloyd: That is our interpretation of article 8A. We must consider what rights of movement might be given to residents of the Community who are not EC nationals. Clearly, that is a matter for the intergovernmental discussions that will take place under the new pillar structure that has come about as a result of Maastricht.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, the rights might be given by the European Commission in advance of membership being formally granted to the EFTA countries seeking membership of the European Community.

Mr. Lloyd: I shall try to clarify the point. Such residents will have rights within the countries party to the Schengen agreement, which have removed their internal frontiers. That is a matter for, and an agreement between, those countries. Our position is that that is not required by the treaty.

Dr. Godman: Again, I am grateful to the Minister.
In an earlier intervention, I asked the Secretary of State about the rights of third-country nationals long domiciled within the European Community, and whether different classes of citizens would arise. For example, would those from north African countries now living in France and immigrant workers from countries such as Turkey and Yugoslavia, who have been long domiciled in Germany, be given inferior status in comparison with the nationals of the 12 nations that make up the European Community?
The euphemistically named gastarbeiter in Germany and the immigrants working in France will not be given the same freedom of movement under article 8A and articles 48 to 59. If they are to be denied such rights to movement, will they be confined within the borders of the countries in which they now live? That would seem to be the case for several millions of people, many of whom have lived in such countries for many years.
In Germany, the Government actively encouraged people to move from countries such as Spain, Yugoslavia and Turkey to take up work when the German economy was booming. Some of those people have lived in Germany for more than 30 years. The same could be said of many people living in France.
I am concerned that those people will be denied the rights of free movement, travel and work in the 12 Community countries. We will be left with a group of people who will not have the rights given to all EC nationals. That is a matter for considerable concern.
The secretary to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Elspeth Guild, has written to me to say:
It is not conducive to the completion of the internal market that long term resident third country nationals should be subject to a fundamentally different regime in EC law as regards family life, deportation, employment or other immigration matters than EC nationals exercising free movement rights.
As I said to the Secretary of State earlier, many of the recent racist attacks in Germany and France have been directed against those migrant workers and their families. If the EC treats such people as inferior citizens, that encourages the vicious and horrible treatment that is meted out to them by their fellow EC citizens.
Those workers were encouraged to work in the EC just as many West Indians were encouraged to come here to work for the national health service, London Transport and other public agencies. After migrant workers have been resident in the EC for perhaps seven years, they

should have equal rights to those enjoyed by EC nationals under the terms of the articles that I mentioned. I appreciate that we do not have such workers within the borders of the United Kingdom, but I should be interested to discover the Government's position on the status of immigrant workers.
Under the terms of the new directory—one could call it the "Yellow Pages"—and assuming that it goes any further, if one of my constituents chose to live and work in any of the 11 EC countries, he or she would have the right to vote in municipal elections. That Greenockian would also have the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. I suspect that the next stage would be the right to vote in domestic elections to national legislatures.
My constituents will have the right to travel freely throughout the other 11 countries of the Community—I suspect that they will be given the right to travel freely throughout the whole of the European economic area, despite the reservations that the Under-Secretary of State voiced—whereas immigrant workers long domiciled within the European Community, having been encouraged to come and work here, will be denied such rights. That is shameful.
The European Commission has much to answer for, because the measure will affect not only the immigrant workers and their families but also members of their families who still reside in their country of origin. It is difficult for immigrant workers in the European Community to encourage members of their families to visit them from their countries of origin. Such discrimination should be eliminated on the basis of a period of residence within the European Community. Nothing less will do.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. May I remind hon. Members of Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief speeches?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall make a brief speech, because there is just a small issue to consider. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer the point clearly and precisely. The only issue that really matters is: if the European Court overturns the lovely outline of policies set out by the Home Secretary in his splendid speech, what will the Government do?
This debate is about the fact that our whole immigration control policy could disappear so that we would have no effective parliamentary or governmental control. We all know that that is the issue. I also want to know why we are having this debate at such a good time. There is one reporter in the Press Gallery and plenty of people listening in the Public Gallery.
Why, when the Government usually have all the filthy, rotten, dirty, expensive, undemocratic issues in Europe discussed after 11 o'clock at night, is this issue being discussed in the afternoon when people can hear about it? We all know that the reason is that we have a decent Home Secretary who wants to fight for our rights and for democracy. He knows that it will be a tough battle with the European Community, and he is looking for support. However, he is not getting much support, with only a handful of hon. Members present, because most hon. Members do not like talking about the EEC.
The Home Secretary will agree that the issue is terribly important. If the British people appreciate—as they will—the fact that our control of immigration is likely to disappear, they will be concerned about good race relations. Conservative and Opposition Members who, like me, want to keep good race relations in Britain know that that depends on people feeling that we have matters under control.
Much has already gone. We have heard about the double lock in Maastricht—it sounds wonderful—but, sadly, we add to that what we committed ourselves to discussing and agreeing so quickly at Maastricht. It is all set out in the official documents: harmonisation of policies on admission; harmonisation of admission for other purposes; harmonisation of legal provisions; and a common approach to illegal immigration. We have committed ourselves to working out agreements on what should go.
We now know that we have made a commitment that European nationals will be free to move. We must remember what an EEC national is—not just nice people who live in France, Germany and Italy. If the Community is extended, EEC nationals will include eastern Europeans. I am sure that the civil servants who give such splendid advice will tell us that many European nationals do not even live in Europe. For example, only a few miles from Hong Kong is a Portuguese territory with Portuguese citizens who will shortly have the right to enter Britain, while the people of Hong Kong, which until now has been a British colony, will not have the same right. Citizens of French territories will also be allowed to enter Britain in the same way.
What will the Government do on the European scene? They believe that, because of the Maastricht agreement and other legislation, Britain and its European partners will have the power to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. The Home Secretary set that out in his speech. He said that the Government think that they have control, having ensured a double lock at Maastricht, but he and many others know that the European Commission challenges that absolutely and fundamentally, arid has energetically disputed our interpretation of the legislation. it understands what the single European act says.
Some of my hon. Friends who voted so enthusiastically for the Act should tell their constituents what they agreed to—the free movement of goods, people, services and capital. The Commission says that that means something else—if the free movement of people is to be guaranteed and because the majority of MPs voted for it, the controls that we think we have will not be enforced.
Who will decide? Sadly, the Home Secretary will not decide. Rather, the European Court will do so, and we must warn people in Britain that the European Court is not like our courts but is a political court. At almost every opportunity, it gives more power and control to the institutions of the Community. As certainly as night follows day, on the basis of reading all its judgments and interpretations, I believe that it will find against Britain.
Individuals may follow Mr. Bangemann's advice and go to the court and say, "Please sir, the British law is rubbish." However, after 1 January 1993, the Commission will promote that case, and I am certain that the British Government will lose. People may say that I am a fatalist, and that I always think that we shall lose but that we may win; but what will happen if the Government lose? Will we

simply say that the decision is fair enough, we shall scrap our immigration control and it does not matter? Ultimately, we must state our policy now.
Conservative Members are becoming well aware of the fact that the power and authority of British elected Governments are not only fading away because of the policies to which we have agreed but slipping away because of the interpretations of the court. After the next election—we do not know who will win—we must start to ask where we should go on Europe. Are we willing simply to sit back and let all the power of our democratic assembly simply go to non-elected bodies? People—including my hon. enthusiastic Euro-Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is always promoting the EEC—who think that the European Parliament will fill that gap should know that they are kidding themselves. There is no way in which the European Parliament could fill that gap unless we were to start over again.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I promised to speak briefly, but if my hon. Friend insists, I shall give way.

Mr. Budgen: Is not one of the problems the fact that people think of judges as highly qualified and wise technicians whereas, unfortunately, the judges of the European Court of Justice are part-lawyers, part-politicians? They interpret the treaty in a way that gives it extra impetus, and, as a result, the alliance between the court and the Commission always extends the power of the EC.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Those are wise words, but I am not sure whether the public will listen to them.
There is a real danger that our immigration control laws will be switched to Brussels and therefore become useless. If anyone doubts that, he should consider the control of immigration in Italy, for example, and the spasmodic control of immigration in Greece. Given the fact that that will be our boundary, the matter is important.
The Government should say what they will do if Britain loses in the European Court. They can do something in a positive European way. First, to make it clear that they have everyone on their side, they should publish a statement by our Law Officers saying that they support the views of the Home Secretary and explaining why they support those views. If we had a clear indication that the Government and the Law Officers were united, that would strengthen our purpose.
Secondly, if the Government fundamentally believe that immigration control is still to be a United Kingdom matter, they should use the presidency of the Council to put forward an emergency proposal or treaty saying that, for the avoidance of doubt should the Commission disagree, we wish to make it abundantly clear that the control of who comes into our country is a matter for our Government and our laws.
I am glad that the Government had the courage to discuss a difficult Euro-issue at a time when people will hear what is happening. We cannot run away from the issue; the EEC is taking more and more control over it. But if responsibility for the control of who comes into this country is transferred to the EEC, national sovereignty will effectively disappear. It will not be enough to say that


we shall have new cards stating, "I am a Euro-citizen," and giving the holder certain entitlements. Even if we tried to the best of our ability not to allow forged identity cards for citizens of a United Europe, we would not solve the problem of who comes into this country and how. The Government must stand firm.
I watch Ministers, and I believe that, in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we have someone who is prepared to have a fight and have a go. I believe that he will not merely pass the issue to a committee to have another look. If my judgment is right, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is prepared to stand firm and have a go. If that is his intention, he should first ask for a statement from the Law Officers giving the Government's view and the reasons for it. Secondly, we should have a new treaty under the British presidency stating that the matter of who comes into a country is one for elected national Governments. If he does that, it will be a step forward for democracy, Britain and Europe.

Sir Timothy Raison: It is absolutely right that we should debate this subject today, and that it should be debated in a tone remarkably free from the electioneering which accompanies almost everything that happens in the House at present. We have had a sensible and serious debate. We know that problems are caused by the pressure of large numbers of potential asylum seekers, that the Government's Asylum Bill is proceeding through Parliament, and what happened at Maastricht. Nobody could doubt the seriousness of what is taking place in many parts of the world, such as Africa, the middle east and eastern Europe, where events are all liable enormously to step up pressure to migrate.
We are faced with terrific difficulties. We have a tradition of dealing with refugees fairly and seriously, and it would be sad if we were ever to abandon that, but we cannot simply accept everyone who comes from a country where there is civil war, famine or poverty. So far as possible, we must act through our aid and development programmes—hon. Members have been right to stress that —but we must also recognise that the most intense pressure at present comes not from strictly economic refugees, but from those fleeing the civil wars that are breaking out, causing chaos and cruelty in places such as Africa, Sri Lanka and Iraq. Therefore, it is not simply an economic refugee problem.
We must also press throughout the world, through aid and development programmes, for human rights. One of the wise moves of the Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, is the way in which they have been willing to couple the notion of good human and civil rights with the provision of aid for development. We are moving into an era in which not only our aid programmes, but the United Nations, are having to be a bit more interventionist than they were in the years of post-war dispensation.
The debate is about how the Government and the European Community are responding to the pressures. I believe that on the whole we have got it about right. The policy that is developing is basically sensible. I support the Asylum Bill, the need for it and, generally, the measures postulated to accompany it. Those measures have been

activated by the need to cope with the pressures that I have already mentioned and the need to speed up the handling of asylum cases, which is enormously important. I know as well as everyone else the delays which can occur in the Home Office.
The report of the Select Committee on European Legislation reminded us that the handling of cases is an important part of the Asylum Bill. The report states:
the Asylum Bill is mainly concerned to provide a right of appeal in asylum cases.
We should remember that it is not just a restrictionist measure, but states that when people come to this country and apply for asylum, there should be a proper and more effective system of appeal than the one that we have had.
As one who has previously argued for better appeal rights for asylum seekers, I am glad that the Bill provides that. I accept that some people would like it to go further and believe that the appeal rights are not sufficient. One can argue that, but asylum seekers will gain in terms of human liberty for asylum seekers under the provisions provided, which is why I support the Bill.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and other Government Members who said, when dealing with the Bill, that they were willing to be flexible and respond if it is suggested that there are inadequacies and elements within the package which are not sufficiently fair to any group of asylum seekers. A number of important changes have been made, all of which are to the credit of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Government have been taking exactly the right steps on the issue, but what about the European Community's position, the subject of today's debate? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained in his opening speech that the Community has competence over the rights of free movement and residence for EC nationals, which is accepted. There is a more difficult question about the families of EC nationals, as they too have rights which are governed by EC rules.
When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke of the objective tests that a Labour Government would apply, he was somewhat cloudy on the issue. We all know that the primary purpose rule is difficult to interpret. I was at the Home Office when it was introduced and I do not think that I had any illusions then, but I realised that it would cause difficulties. Anybody with a substantial number of immigrants— particularly Asian ones—in their constituency will know that it is not easy to interpret the primary purpose rule.
The idea that the Labour party, if in power, would set the matter on an objective basis is a fanciful and pie-in-the-sky idea. At the very least, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), the Front-Bench spokesman, should tell the House exactly what is meant by objective tests and how they would work. We must ask questions about that.
Apart from the establishment of a common list of visa countries and a standardised format, most of the important questions have rightly been left to the realm of political co-operation outside the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) queried whether that could be maintained and whether the European Court might not throw the whole thing out of the window. I do not think that it is realistic to ask Ministers to state what they would do if that were to happen—we devoutly hope that it will not—and it would be injudicious on their part to do so. It is right that matters


such as asylum policy, border controls and the immigration of third-country nationals should be dealt with by political co-operation. Such issues are better left in the realm of national competence.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been right to insist that we retain frontier controls. To abandon them would bring enormous risks. We know all too well the dangers of terrorism today. We also know, as we look around the European Community, that there would be some pretty weak links in the chain. Without particularising the matter, we could not rely on some countries to have effective border controls, and we are absolutely right to take a cautious view.
I also believe that we should be cautious about accepting the notion that any non-European Community national with a right of residence should be able to work anywhere in the European Community—the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). He asked why people from third, non-European countries who have the right to live here and who may have lived here for a long time should not have the freedom to move anywhere or seek work anywhere in the European Community. That view is being expressed by the Commission for Racial Equality, too.
The answer is that the circumstances of these different groups of non-Community nationals vary enormously. The reasons why ours are here are particular to our own circumstances—to do with the history of the British empire. Our non-nationals are from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. They came here for reasons to do with the empire and in many ways they have retained their special character. It would be wrong to say that what has been suitable for us should necessarily be accepted by all other European countries as suitable for them. Their histories differ from ours—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Budgen) says helpfully that the same applies in reverse. The history of north African migration is particular to France, and so on.
It would be a mistake to adopt the view advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The notion of subsidiarity is relevant in this context. If, for the sake of argument, someone comes from Pakistan and lawfully settles here, he will after a period be able to acquire British nationality. That is open to him. The proper way for a man or woman to achieve what the hon. Gentleman desires is to do exactly that: to live here for a period, to be settled in this country, to have a commitment to this country, and then to acquire citizenship.
I know that there are some difficulties because certain countries—India, for instance—choose not to allow dual nationality. That is really not our fault; we cannot help it if the Indian Government insist on forbidding dual nationality to their citizens. Perhaps Indians should, at a certain stage, have to commit themselves to living in Europe even if that means relinquishing their Indian citizenship and then acquire United Kingdom citizenship —and in the process acquire the rights that pertain to a citizen of the United Kingdom. The stance that we are adopting on this is perfectly tenable; to move away from it in the direction advocated by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow could cause difficulties.
The Government are proceeding on the right lines in this respect. It is enormously important that there should be no question of playing the issue as an election card—it would do nothing but harm if, in some mysterious way,

issues of race or immigration became puffed up at election time. The Government are perfectly entitled to bring back the Asylum Bill after the election if it does not reach the statute book before then. I would support such a move, but time has shown that it is possible to handle these issues with a mixture of firmness and sensitivity.
Perhaps I am parti pris, but looking back on the period since 1979 during which we have handled the matter in Government by the frequently mentioned combination of firm control and a positive commitment to building up good race relations, I think that our method has worked. It is to the credit of the Conservative Administration since that time that we have pursued those policies. It has not always been easy, given the many emotive pressures involved, but it has paid off. There are still blots on the landscape, such as the vicious and deplorable racial attacks, but overall the policy has worked. We have a fairly good degree of racial harmony in this country, and it would be fatal to do anything to damage it.

Mr. John Carlisle: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), who had a distinguished career in the Home Office as art Under-Secretary of State—

Mr. Budgen: Minister of State.

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, he was promoted halfway through. He was enormously helpful to my constituents and those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We respect his views and the knowledge that he brings to our proceedings. I am pleased to follow what may have been his valedictory oration to the House, in which he has served as a distinguished Member for many years.
On a note of slight dissention from my right hon. Friend's views, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will agree with me that this issue will be talked about in the forthcoming general election campaign, especially in constituencies such as mine, where, in the constituency town although not in my actual constituency, about 20 per cent. of the inhabitants are of ethnic origin, albeit third or fourth generation.
This matter worries a lot of people, and it is one on which the two parties of opposition and the Government are miles apart. That was well highlighted in this afternoon's speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who once again failed to answer the relevant questions put by Front and Back-Bench Conservatives.
The representative from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), saw fit to grace our proceedings—[HON. MEmBERs:"Where is he?"] My hon. Friends are right to ask. He came in 16 minutes late with a lame excuse for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He stayed for part of my right hon. Friend's speech and then disappeared; yet I have no doubt that on doorsteps over the next few weeks, as we go to ask the country for its support, many Liberal Democrat candidates will be expounding policies which are obviously a matter of shame to the hon. Gentleman, who is not here to defend them.
I remember the contribution by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to the Second Reading debate


on the Asylum Bill; many of us who were here will recall that it was the longest diatribe we had had the misfortune to listen to—

Sir John Wheeler: And the most boring.

Mr. Carlisle: Certainly, and the longest in centuries.
The fact that none of the hon. Gentleman's party is here to defend policy or to comment on this important issue is an insult to the House and to the electorate, who I hope will remember this fact when these matters are brought up, as they inevitably will be, on people's doorsteps and in discussions of national policy.
The two major parties are certainly poles apart, which is why most of us welcome the opportunity of this debate, which has once again highlighted the fact that Labour has no answers to the questions that might arise if the European Court went against the Government on this issue or on immigration in general.
Many of us remember—it was not that long ago—how a Labour Government granted not one but two amnesties to illegal overstayers. Regrettably, there are probably still several thousand of them even under the strict immigration rules of this Government, but they must be taking some comfort from the idea that, if a Labour Government are returned, they will receive similar treatment this time.
I remember asking the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on Second Reading of the Asylum Bill what Labour would do about an amnesty. He ducked the issue again. Probably the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who is shaking his head, will offer us some clarification on whether he will rule out any form of amnesty for illegal overstayers or for those who have been caught by asylum procedures. I note that the hon. Gentleman remains rigidly stuck to his seat, but we look forward to some reaction from him.
This issue is so important because over the years it has changed the character of many of our towns and cities. To some extent, it has enriched their cultures, but many people understandably still fear that if the numbers increase substantially—I am sad to see that they did in the past few years, having dipped a bit in the mid-1980s—then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, the excellent race relations in our towns and cities could worsen. I am proud of the record of my constituency town, incidentally. In this case, this explains why the fear that will be expressed on people's doorsteps is ever present.
We are absolutely right to resist any attempt by the European Commission or the European Court to relax the immigration laws for which we have fought long and hard and which have been consistently opposed by both Opposition parties.

Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, this incursion into our laws by the European Community will have to be resisted because it would cause immense damage and disruption in the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend recall that not long ago Chancellor Kohl suggested immigration quotas in the Community to absorb additional immigration into

Germany? However, Mr. Genscher has pursued a policy of dispersing such people to the rest of the Community. That is completely crazy and not at all communautaire.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention. He was not able to be here for the earlier part of the debate when the fear was expressed that even the new breakdown of frontiers for EC nationals will cause enormous trouble, especially if other countries relax their frontier controls and permit the entry of third-country immigrants. I am glad that the Government have a strong line on this issue.
Either the brief of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was so short or his knowledge of the asylum issue was so short that he spent most of his time on the Asylum Bill rather than speaking about the rules that are before the House. We are all aware of asylum abuse and the anger that is generated by abuses of the system. I am pleased to note that, when we return to government after the election, we shall correct the generosity of the system. The anger against asylum seekers is felt not only by members of the indigenous population but by those who have to come to our country from far off shores. That anger is directed against overstayers and illegal immigrants who have been permitted to stay here by previous Labour Governments. That anger is understandable, because those people are breaking the rules.
Regrettably, to a certain extent immigration is all about numbers. About 1,000 a week now apply to come to this country. Of those, 70, 75 or even 80 per cent. are found to be or suspected to be illegal asylum seekers. That makes the situation worse, and the country should be grateful and will remember in the coming election campaign that only the Conservative party has stood firm against bogus asylum seekers and has decided to do something about them.
The main issue before the House is the worry about immigration, and it is accentuated by Commissioner Bangemann's pronouncements because he was almost inviting those who are refused entry to seek some remission in the European Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was right to say that we should know what the Government intend to do if judgments go against us. In the past, we have been given assurances with little authority—they were possibly whistling in the wind—that the court actions would not go against us.
However, we should have some sort of contingency plan. We will be asked on the doorsteps about what will happen if the European Court overturns all the frontier controls that we are trying desperately to hold. What will be the reaction of the next Government, assuming that they are Conservative? Of course we know what the reaction of a Labour Government would be, because it was outlined by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in the debate and by him and his party in documents.
Labour would abolish the primary purpose rule. That is in the document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" and has not been denied in the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central nods—perhaps in response to that or in response to something else. We seek clarification from him because the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will not clarify what Labour would do about the primary purpose rule. If that rule is abolished, the gates and doors will open wide to any itinerant traveller who


chooses to come to this country, and the number of immigrants will increase dramatically. For many of them, entry to this country is attractive.
Few members of the Labour party are interested in these subjects or willing to put their heads above the parapet. When I speak about such matters, there are usually Opposition shouts of "racist" or "nationalist". I stand purely on the basis of being nationalist and for the protection of my communities. Over the years, those communities have accepted itinerant travellers, genuine immigrants, people from different lands and cultures. They have been accepted with a good grace and we have had extremely good race relations. If frontier controls were reduced or abandoned, those relations would suffer, especially if the primary purpose rule were abolished, as I think that it would be by a Labour Government.
It was encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that the Government will resist any lessening of frontier controls or relaxation of immigration rules. The Conservative party has a proud record, and it will be put to the test in the general election. I am confident that what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said will encourage all citizens to accept that the Conservative party intends to apply fair and strong immigration rules and is willing to say at times, as it may have to, that enough is enough.

Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to place on record an observation that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook ( Mr. Hattersley) will have an opportunity to read. He said that the Home Secretary had been guilty of calumny in suggesting that the Liberal Democrats had an open-door policy on immigration. I understand why the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was unable to be present at any of the sittings of the Committee on the Asylum Bill, but if he had been there, he would have gained the same impression as those of us who were present throughout the sittings—that the Liberal Democrat party, which, sadly, is not represented in the Chamber for this debate, has no policy at all on immigration other than to say that anyone who wants to come here can do so because there is no way to stop him. If that is not an open-door policy, I do not know what is.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), have performed a considerable U-turn since the start of the Asylum Bill to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook devoted so much of his speech. He has described it as a nasty, racist measure hut, perhaps with the thought of a general election in mind, Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have suddenly espoused the Bill and wished it speedy progress.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, because he set out the grounds on which we still oppose the Asylum Bill. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and I sat for many hours in Committee considering the Asylum Bill, and he knows that we expressed a number of concerns about it. My right hon. Friend was simply pointing to those concerns, which we thought the Government might be prepared to meet, as we both agree that some legislation is required.

Mr. Gale: I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman's dissertation on the Asylum Bill, and I heard no answers to the questions put to him by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will shortly have an opportunity to speak, when no doubt he will answer those questions on behalf of his right hon. Friend. We shall listen with bated breath to his responses.
The Home Secretary said that asylum must not be a back door to immigration. We must decide whether asylum will be a back door to Europe in the context of the documents that we have been asked to consider. The Select Committee on Home Affairs, on which I have the honour to serve with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who spoke so well earlier in the debate, recently visited a number of countries in the European Community in the course of an inquiry into Europe's external frontiers. We first visited Brussels and we spoke with Herr Bangemann's directorate, the civil servants responsible for the policy.
I was left in no doubt that the European Commissioner responsible, and his team, regard the removal of the internal frontiers as an integral part of the single market. I was also left in no doubt that they regard any check at any internal frontiers on European Community nationals travelling within the European Community as unlawful. I believe that the European Commissioner will move, as Mr. Bangemann has said he will, heaven and earth to ensure that there are no checks at internal frontiers.
The explanatory memorandum submitted by the Government for the debate says that the Government intend
to continue to apply a control to all arriving non-EC nationals … EC nationals are not subject to a substantive immigration control, but it will be necessary to ask them to show a passport or national identity card in order to distinguish them from non-EC nationals.
The European Commissioner believes that we shall have no right to do that. I do not understand how it will be possible to check the arrival of non-European Community nationals in this country, by whatever means, unless we are also able first to ascertain who is a European Community national.
My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), said much earlier that he believed that we were on a collision course with the. European Commission over this issue. Having visited Brussels with the Select Committee and taken evidence, I am certain that he is right. The Commission is determined that we shall not check internally.
The Select Committee has also taken evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North said earlier. Incidentally, the association has changed its view on identity cards, and I shall come to that later. Members of the association described to the Committee what they believe to be the likely effects of the removal of internal frontiers. It is abundantly plain that those upon whom we place the burden of the enforcement of law, and those of their colleagues who share that burden throughout the Community, believe that the removal of internal frontiers will have a devastating effect on the control of illegal immigration, trafficking in drugs and international financial fraud. There is no doubt at all of their view.
In the course of our inquiry, we moved from Brussels through Berlin and east Germany to Frankfurt an der Oder, on the east German-Polish border. We talked to


immigration and customs officials and the police. We walked into Poland and saw the 18-mile queue of lorries waiting to come into the European Community across the border that, from 1993, will be the United Kingdom border. On average, those lorries wait for eight hours; on a bad day, they wait 18 to 20 hours; and on occasion—we saw this happen—the customs officers will take a lorry to pieces searching for illegal contraband and drugs—there is an amphetamine factory just over the border. It is inconceivable that those checks can be maintained. European Community policy—the policy concocted by the Commission—was dreamt up before the Berlin wall came down, and it is wholly inappropriate to the needs of today.
We went from Frankfurt an der Oder to Genoa, in northern Italy, on the Italian riviera and spoke to police and customs officers there. We learned from them that, in the past year alone, the police had obtained 700 deportation orders for illegal immigrants but that only 80 of them were implemented, because the other 620 illegal immigrants could not be found. The Italians made it plain to us that they regarded immigration as part of a natural process that satisfied their need for employees. For many years, Italians have been emigrants as well. They regard visitors' visas as a light matter.
A traveller through Genoa into the European Community on a three-month Italian visitors' visa can disappear anywhere within the Community, and if the Commission has its way, he can do so without any check. He can come to the United Kingdom, he can head for the lights and the financial benefit of Germany, or he can go to France, Spain, or anywhere in the Community. When the visa has expired, how in heaven's name can the Italian authorities begin to find that person?

Mr. John Carlisle: When he was in Europe, did my hon. Friend or the Committee make any inquiries as to the medical checks on these travellers? He might recall a famous case a few months ago when some travellers from Bangladesh came through Europe to the United Kingdom. Two of them finished up in my constituency having jumped bail, and both were typhoid carriers. Did the Select Committee examine the possible medical dangers if there are no checks at the frontiers, or if, as is the case with the Italians, illegal immigration is encouraged?

Mr. Gale: The honest answer is no, we did not. We confined ourselves wholly to external frontier matters as they related to immigration. I accept what my hon. Friend says about health matters, but what we discovered was hair-raising enough in its own right.
The Italians to whom we spoke mentioned their economic need for illegal immigrants, who do the jobs the Italians do not wish to do at salaries that Italians would not accept. That is likely to become the norm throughout the European Community. Any attempt to impose on the European Community the statutory minimum wage that the Opposition intend to introduce will exacerbate that trend.

Mr. Carlisle: And it is unenforceable.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is right. It would also increase the black economy, as those who wish to do so

will employ illegal immigrants for cash rather than employing legally on the open market, which is what most of us would like to see them do.
I came away from that visit of inquiry with a distinct impression of the need for an identity card to serve the United Kingdom, and preferably a Europewide standard identity card. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary showed his opposition to that suggestion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will extend the argument and tell us why any Government should be opposed to the sort of document that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. North defined in his excellent speech.
The Home Affairs Select Committee has consistently recommended the introduction of an identity card—initially voluntary, although one that might well become mandatory. It would be a facilitating document that could carry medical and personal documents if the holder so wishes. It would provide instant identity and serve as a travel document throughout the European Community.
Much has been made of the internal frontiers convention—another product of the European Community. The explanatory memorandum offered by the Government for this afternoon's debate says:
The draft External Frontiers Convention, which has not yet been signed but about which written evidence has recently been given to the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry on migration controls … affords the prospect of improved collective defences against illegal entry to the European Community and of reduced visa formalities for genuine visitors and persons resident in Member States.
Does that mean "improved collective defences" along the entire River Oder, over which we flew in a helicopter and saw mile after mile of open frontier that anybody could cross without let or hindrance? Are there to be improved defences for Genoa along the entire coast of northern Italy, into which any boat can sail carrying immigrants from north Africa with impunity? Are there to be improved external defences around every Greek island, or around the shores of the United Kingdom, France or Ireland?
That concept does not exist. The compensatory measures upon which Community policy has been based do not provide for that which is needed. The policy was dreamt up before the fall of the Berlin wall. To remove the internal frontiers of Europe now would be every bit as dangerous as removing the watertight bulkheads of a ship while there was a gaping hole in the bow.
No doubt some of us will be accused of racist overtones or undertones. The Select Committee on which I serve has been and seen, and I fear for what 1 have seen. The European proposals that we are considering will cause immense damage to race relations in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Community.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: First, I apologise to the House for being absent from the Chamber for most of the debate. 1 was attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Social Security. Perhaps I should apologise to the Minister for returning, because he does not seem awfully pleased to see me.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Corbyn: Obviously, I misjudged the Minister. As I have said, I had to attend a sitting of a Select Committee, so I could not he in my place in the Chamber for much of the debate.
I am glad that there is a debate on asylum and immigration policies throughout Europe, for it is time that one should take place in a calm atmosphere. Popular newspapers have been discussing the subject over the past few months, and much of that material seems to have rested upon unattributable anecdotal evidence about the alleged misdemeanours of a few who are seeking political asylum. This "evidence" is blown up and becomes part of common parlance. In other words, it becomes common currency. It is repeated at the Dispatch Box by the Home Secretary, who then says that he does not want to stir up feeling on these matters. However, he continues to repeat the "evidence".
I recall that, on Second Reading of the Asylum Bill, The Daily Mail chose as a front-page story the allegation that somebody seeking asylum had defrauded British Telecom of £120,000. It occurred to me that that newspaper might have done well to report that the chairman of British Telecom is paid £550,000: that would have put things into perspective.
There has been a stream of stories of that sort—perhaps, in a sense, to give credibility to the Asylum Bill, which I sincerely hope will be lost. It is my wish that the general election will arrive and spare us that awful legislation. We are not discussing the specific terms of that Bill, but I think that we should put on record once again our continuing opposition to the measure.
The Asylum Bill would not give proper rights of appeal to those who are refused political asylum. It would introduce a twin-track policy. It would introduce fingerprinting of all those who seek political asylum, including their children. When pressed on that issue, the Under-Secretary of State was unable to say what would be the minim urn age at which a child would be fingerprinted. The Bill would ensure that those who sought political asylum could not obtain permanent housing until their cases had been resolved. That means that the children of asylum seekers in London, and especially in the part of it that I represent, would be in bed-and-breakfast hotels or other substandard accommodation. A lack of temporary accommodation means exactly that.
The consequences of the provisions to which I have referred are compounded when we remember the deliberate punishment of asylum seekers that was meted out by the Prime Minister when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the concept of 90 per cent. payments only of income support for those who were asylum seekers. There is no logic behind that policy, but it is set out in social security legislation.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the issue of permanent housing was discussed during the passage of the Asylum Bill. I wonder what he tells those who are on the council waiting list—I have no doubt that there are a considerable number in his constituency, as there are in mine—who would have to wait even longer for a home because asylum seekers, under his policy, would be put in front of them at the head of the queue. I wonder what he says to those who are on the waiting list who see him at his advice centres.

Mr. Corbyn: I tell those who are on the housing waiting list in my constituency—I hope that the hon. Gentleman does the same—that everybody should be housed according to need. I say that those who are homeless should be housed. I tell them that there is no discrimination when it comes to housing. I say that allocations are made on the basis of need, irrespective of where their parents come from, where they come from or where their children come from.
I explain that the borough within my constituency needs a capital building programme of about £80 million a year if it is to deal with serious housing shortages within the area, and add that it has never received more than 25 per cent. of what is needed from central Government. Authorisation is needed before it is possible to build. I try to make people aware that continual pressure on the authority to sell council houses exacerbates the housing problem. Those people who sleep on the streets of London did not sleep on them 10 years ago. They are there now because of cuts in the house-building programme, the deregulation of private-sector rents and the sale of council-owned property in areas of high housing stress. That is what I tell the people who are on the waiting list. I believe that it is the honest answer, and I shall continue to give it.
There are many other aspects of the Asylum Bill to which my colleagues and I take the strongest possible objection, and I hope that those in the other place will be able to amend it. As I have said, however, I hope that we shall hear no more of the Bill. It was guided by a deliberate misuse of statistics by the Home Secretary at last year's Tory party conference—not by good purpose or good intent—and a wish by the popular press to wind up the asylum issue. We need to have an informed debate about political asylum.
It is necessary also to debate the rise of racism throughout Europe. It is extremely serious that, across Europe, there is a rapid and frightening growth in racist and neo-fascist activities and parties. In Germany, between August and December 1991, there were 800 recorded attacks on the dwellings of non-European nationals legally living in the country—guest workers or whatever one wants to call them.
The level of Nazi-style activity in parts of former East Germany is frightening. Many brave people have stood up against racist violence and racist attacks in Germany, and it is sad that the outrages still continue. It was highly appropriate that last year, on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, there was a demonstration outside the German embassy. We demanded that the German Government should take much stronger action against the perpetrators of racist violence.
It is frightening also that one of the supposedly more popular politicians in France, which suffered so grievously from Nazi aggression between 1939 and 1945, should be that awful character Jean-Marie Le Pen, who unfortunately visited Britain last year. He represents all that is vile about fascism and racism throughout Europe.
The growth of racism is not confined to France and Germany. There is a growth of racist parties in Austria, and the recent general election in Sweden was dominated by a sort of anti-asylum-seeker tide. If we try to appease these forces and tides, they will not go away. Racist violence does not disappear because someone says, "We


should understand people's feelings." There has to be an understanding that any appeasement of racism has a ratchet effect and racism increases.
We are not without the problem in this country. Racial violence is, unfortunately, quite common in our major cities. In this country, a racial attack takes place roughly every 30 minutes. That is one too many in any circumstances. We need to end the implicit approval of racial violence that too many people show.
We are also talking about the rights of people in Europe. There are 15 million non-European nationals living within the European Economic Community. They do not have the rights that the rest of us enjoy. They live in western Europe, they pay their taxes in western Europe, and they contribute to the economic well-being of western Europe. They are positive and supportive members of the community, yet they are denied the right to vote and the right of free movement within western Europe that is implicit in the rights of EEC citizens.

Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Community, in the shape of the European Commission, by failing to take care of the rights of those people, is creating an underclass of permanent residents of the European Community?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. The Community is creating an underclass through its refusal to grant civil and political rights to many of those people. Also, there is a failure to understand the position of people who, in legal terms, are illegal immigrants. There are people who live in the major cities of western Europe and of this country who lead a twilight existence. They are afraid to go anywhere or to do anything for fear of being deported. They are grievously exploited by unscrupulous employers who know that they can exploit their current situation. There must be an understanding that, if it is to be a civilised continent after 1992, something must be done about the underclass of people who are so abominably treated throughout Europe.
I deal with a large number of cases relating to immigration and asylum law in my constituency. Some of the unhappiest people who come to see me are those who came from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—often many years ago—whose children and partners, usually the wives, are left behind at home. They go through the awful misery of the entry clearance queue, which can take years and years to be resolved. There is the misery of living on remittances sent home while somebody works extremely hard in this country and is denied the right of family reunion. That matter should be addressed far more vigorously by the British Government. The right of family reunion is clearly within the European convention.
There are also the rights of family union of asylum seekers. I raised that matter with the Home Secretary during an intervention. At the moment, a group of Kurdish asylum seekers are camped outside the Home Office, demanding the right of family reunion. Most of them have been here since 1989, when they fled oppression in Turkey and sought asylum in this country. Their applications are being proceesed. In the meantime, their families are extremely vulnerable at home. The plight of

families who may not themselves merit asylum within the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention or indeed any other legislation at least deserves consideration.
The 1951 Geneva convention was drawn up in a different atmosphere in a different time. It was drawn up because large numbers of people were seeking political asylum in various countries. They were usually from what is now eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. The movement of people in search of political asylum has changed. It is now third-world countries that are having to support refugees who have sought asylum. Often, their own regimes drive people out. People have been driven out of Somalia, Zaire, Ethiopia and other African countries. In the past, people have been driven out of Chile and, more recently, El Salvador. There is a range of countries that people have to leave in order to seek their own safety.
We must recognise the right to seek political safety. We also have the responsibility to ensure that they are able to get to that safety. Many of them, tragically, do not. We have a duty to play our part in ensuring that people seek political asylum. We also have a duty to pursue a foreign policy objective that does not give succour and comfort to the most oppressive regimes.
Throughout the time that he was in power before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was not heavily criticised by the British Government—no way. People were fleeing Saddam Hussein from the time he came to power. I am glad to say that some of them managed to obtain political asylum in this country. Saddam Hussein was given arms, aid, ammunition and credit by western European Governments, and he was not alone in that. We should seek to be a little more rational and reasonable.
One of my constituents from Turkey sought political asylum in this country. He was threatened with deportation, and he never went hack; the reason he did not go back was that he committed suicide. He took his own life rather than go back. His name was Siho lyogouen. I hope that, in memory of such people, who felt that they could not cope any more, we will have a slightly more humane attitude to asylum seekers than the Asylum Bill or many Conservative Members appear to have.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words about a subject that is very important to my constituents. I feel some sadness in taking part in a debate for the last time with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison). There is no doubt that, in 1974, when I was first elected to the House, there was a widespread feeling, certainly in my constituency and in many others, that there was a comfortable consensus between the Tory and Labour Front Benches, dominated most of all by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who treated Lord Whitelaw, as he has become, with kindly condescension—a kindly condescension which, on the whole, Lord Whitelaw accepted.
It was a large part of my political life to make it plain that Wolverhampton and the west midlands demanded tighter controls on immigration. Those who suggested that there should be tighter controls on immigration were regarded as most disagreeable and uncivilised racists. Although it was always thought to be a political necessity, it was always thought to be extremely vulgar to suggest that necessity. In the course of those activities, I spent


much time criticising my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who was at his most distinguished when he was Lord Whitelaw's understrapper at the Home Office. Having spent much time criticising my right hon. Friend, I am bound to say that even though it may be that some of the loopholes have been left unblocked, my right hon. Friend's overall objective has been achieved.
My right hon. Friend did not come to the problem with the same interests and prejudices with which I came to it. He came, most of all, from a liberal standpoint, but he recognised at an early stage that good race relations depend upon tight controls on immigration and that such tight controls must be understood to be in position by all parts of the community, both by the indigenous white population and also by the new immigrants. It is a tribute to my right hon. Friend's political career that, to a great extent, the policy that he has put in place has worked and that tension has much diminished.
One of the difficult matters that my right hon. Friend had to decide concerned the arranged marriage, the relationship between this country and India, the important historic ties that all of us felt—my family had soldiered in India for some generations, and I think that I understand them as well as anybody—and the difference between the attractions of the love marriage and the arranged marriage, which is often a more stable relationship than the so-called western love marriage.
There are the problems which occur among young Asian girls who are torn between their strong family religion and culture and the new culture in which they are brought up at school. There is the agony of those westernised girls who believe that they can have a love marriage, but who find themselves forced into an arranged marriage, sometimes at financial advantage to their families. Those are all difficult problems but, in general, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury struck the right balance. I like to think that we helped him to achieve it, by prodding him all the way. That balance has more or less stuck.
It is perhaps rather dangerous to suggest, as Labour does, that there can be a major change in immigration law, because that gives the impression to the indigenous community that there will be a relaxation when there will not. Alternatively, it is hypocritical and unkind to the Asian community for Labour to make such a suggestion. In general, that community has accepted the existing arrangements, and to give the impression that it will be much easier to gain entry to this country by an arranged marriage is dangerous.
All those questions involve difficult judgments in which conflicting principles must be weighed. That task is essentially one that should be accomplished by domestic legislation, which should take account of the country's conditions, and the conditions in which it ruled other parts of the globe. Legislation needs to reconcile different religions and different systems of government. That is neither an easy nor a precise art, but the present arrangements are more or less sustainable and have the effect of much reducing racial tension.
The EEC proposals illustrate the way in which our continental neighbours seek not, as I put it earlier, to muddle their way through on a step-by-step basis with a sovereign Parliament doing its best in the circumstances—being well aware that one Act may be inconsistent with another—but to proclaim great principles that they hold to be both absolute and immutable.
In paragraph 57 of the Commission's communication of 23 October 1991, Commissioner Bangemann states:
There is also a pressing need to adopt common principles concerning the reuniting of families, taking account of fundamental rights such as are already enshrined in various areas of case law. The right to live with one's family is a fundamental right which cannot be denied by authorities.
Where does the primary purpose rule fit in there? What is a family? Is there such a thing as a fundamental right to join a family that may have been created by an arranged marriage? Does an arranged marriage have the same status in this country as it does in India, for example? Those are all issues on which the House ought to reach a decision. They ought not to be decided by the Commission. It is grossly arrogant for the Commission to present paragraph 57.
I hesitate to say this, but our system of muddling through, and of trying—in a decent and honourable, if perhaps illogical way—to reconcile great and difficult principles has not done too badly. We do not have quite the same reputation and history as Germany, for example, and in many respects we have a rather better history of muddling through difficulties than the French. For a Commissioner to tell us that there are certain immutable principles which ought to be applied to agonising decisions in all circumstances is grossly arrogant. It is dangerously arrogant because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) pointed out, there is—and I put it as high as this—a conspiracy between the Commission and the European Court of Justice whereby the EEC's proposed federal powers could be further extended. Let us have no more of that nonsense.
This country's cohesion and sense of community depend first of all on preserving tight but fair immigration controls. We may not have made a perfect job of that, and I dare say that there have been occasional cases of injustice. We shall need to keep muddling our way through in response to changing social conditions, but we must avoid above all the Commissioners' arrogant impertinence.

Mr. Alistair Darling: As ever when we discuss European instruments, today's debate has been attended by some of the Government's most assiduous anti-Europeans. To give the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) his due, he attends all such debates. Today he said that immigration control was likely to go if the logic of the documents was followed to its conclusion. That is simply not true. No EEC member is advocating such a course. The opposite is happening throughout Europe. There is likely to be increasing co-operation, and more and more controls and procedures will become common, because that is the logic of the Single European Act, which a Conservative Government guillotined through the House five years ago.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman at least study the statements made by Mr. Bangemann, a copy of which I can let him have, in which that Commissioner urges individuals to challenge Britain's rights of control? It is clear that the Commission itself will be taking action after next January.

Mr. Darling: I have read those remarks, but the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, if Europe follows the single European market, obviously more and more


immigration and custom controls will become common. That does not mean that individual member states cannot maintain regimes to suit their particular requirements. We argue that, and so do the Government. There is common ground between us in that regard.
If there is to be a single European market, the logic is that there will be fewer frontier and other controls, but individual member states will be able to maintain their own immigration regimes to meet their own requirements. Every other member state recognises that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East acknowledges also that, in continental Europe in particular, there is a certain logic to reducing barriers between member states so that it will be easier to cross from one to another. There are immigration controls at Europe's external boundaries, but that does not mean that our own immigration rules and regulations cannot be maintained as we see fit.
As there is convergence in some cases and the application of individual rules in others, it will be open to the British Government to maintain our view that there ought to be frontier control around the United Kingdom, while at the same time accepting that there are implications in our membership of the Community.
This debate embraces both asylum and immigration. There is a difference. Asylum concerns the way in which we treat those who come to this country because they fear persecution, whereas immigration determines those laws and regulations that we impose in deciding who should and should not be allowed to enter this country. I emphasise that difference, because the two are often confused—particularly by Conservative Members.
First, let us look at the question of asylum. I think that we all accept that a major problem exists, in that a growing number of people are seeking asylum not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout the European Community. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) mentioned that. Having heard his account of the trip undertaken by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, many hon. Members may want to become members of that Committee. It seems to be a case of "Join the Home Affairs Committee and see the world," given the hon. Gentleman's description of travels throughout Europe and helicopter excursions to see the extent of the problem.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: I am sorry if all his travelling has aroused the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will wait for a moment.
I accept—as, I believe, do all hon. Members—that the EC in general faces a migration problem. Pressure will be exerted both by those who seek to escape the economic misfortunes which have befallen them, and by those who seek to escape persecution, starvation or some other threat. The question is not whether the threat exists, but how we should deal with it. That is the difference between the two sides.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I am not entirely certain that everyone would consider that standing freezing on the east German border constitutes a rest cure. The German Government treat any illegal immigrant—economic or otherwise—who arrives in the republic and asks for asylum as an asylum seeker, and pay benefit. That means

that, as well as receiving money, such people can travel to any country in the European Community without any further checks.

Mr. Darling: Two points arise from that. First, the Germans are in the process of changing their asylum regime, precisely because of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Secondly, if an individual is given the right of abode within a certain EC state, that does not guarantee the right to move around Europe as a whole. That is the main thrust of the debate.

Mr. Gale: There is no frontier.

Mr. Darling: There is a frontier around the United Kingdom, which both main parties—I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats—want to maintain. Anyone wishing to enter the United Kingdom must be identified. EC members in continental Europe have chosen a different party: they have opted for reduced frontier controls, preferring to rely on identity cards. The hon. Gentleman favours the same option—although, to give him his due, he would like both frontier controls and identity cards.
Everyone accepts that a problem exists, and that it needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), if we want to stop the problem at source, we must consider the nature of the regimes which cause people to move. Some regimes are so brutal that populations are terrorised into seeking to escape. We must also not forget the issue of economic development. That applies not only to the developing world, but to the countries mentioned by the hon. Member for Thanet, North—the former members of the eastern European bloc. Unless they are given economic assistance and encouragement, more and more people will be forced to try to escape from starvation or other privations, and to seek a better life. Immigration and asylum control can deal only with the tip of the problem, not with the root cause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made clear our position on the Asylum Bill. I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was so defensive about the concessions that he made in Committee and subsequently—I should have thought that he would be only too pleased to claim credit for them. Certainly, the Government made concessions, some of which were forced on them.
In the case of the plan to scrap legal advice and assistance for those seeking asylum, for instance, they had no alternative because the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service simply could not have dealt with the provision of such assistance; the Government have now been obliged to climb down, and to ensure that it will be available. There were other concessions, however. For instance, there was the insertion into the Bill of an amendment having regard to the provisions of a United Nations convention, and further concessions relating to the rules.
I remind the House that the draft rules—both in terms of procedure, and in terms of the substantive immigration provisions—have to be read part and parcel with the Bill. During the four weeks in which we discussed the matter in Committee, those rules were probably mentioned more often than the Bill itself: without them, the Bill would not work.
The Under-Secretary of State should not be so reluctant to accept that concessions were made. I appreciate that some of his right-wing colleagues may wish to take their revenge, and he may not consider it very helpful of me to refer to the substantial concessions that he made. None the less, they were made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has made it clear that, if the Government want the Asylum Bill to go on to the statute book, they need only move a little further towards meeting the other objections expressed by the Opposition and by groups outside the House. Certain amendments will need to be made to a Bill which both sides agree must be introduced—for there is no doubt that an asylum Bill of some sort will be necessary to deal with the growing number of applications. The Government need only talk to us, and decide whether they can meet the outstanding objections set out by my right hon. Friend.
What has happened to the Bill? It would be interesting to find that out from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. If the Government set such store by the legislation—I believe that it was described as flagship legislation in the autumn—why have they let it run into the sand in the House of Lords? They are responsible for Government business here and in the other place. If the Bill is so important, why was it just left in the House of Lords?
I understand that the Committee stage does not even start until the end of next week, just four days before we expect the Prime Minister to announce that he is going to the country. It is very odd that a Bill in which the Home Secretary took such an interest in July, and at the Tory party conference, has apparently been allowed to die the death in the House of Lords. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us when we can expect to see it return —if, indeed, it is to return.
The second strand of today's debate has been the question of immigration procedures. I repeat the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook about the way in which we discuss such matters. The hon. Member for Southend, East and others have complained bitterly about the way in which the EC draws up regulations and expects member states to follow them. I find it just as invidious that such matters should be dealt with by means of discussions between the appropriate Ministers and the EC.
In one of the most recent documents to emerge from the Commission in Brussels, attention is drawn to the fact that much criticism has been made of the way in which discussions have often been made in secret. Information about the discussions which took place in the Schengen and Trevi groups of Ministers has tended to come out by accident rather than by design. It would be far better if Ministers were prepared to make statements in the House after entering into agreements on behalf of this country, so that they could be questioned and, if necessary, challenged. Certainly, my party will undertake to do that in future.
I believe—this is directly relevant to the discussions that have taken place—that, if we are to discuss the visa regime, two points should be borne in mind. First, I think that it is more likely than not that the use of visas will increase in the EC, rather than decreasing; but, if we are to have visas, it is surely essential for them to be granted far more quickly than at present, so that urgent visits can be carried out without people having to wait several months to find out whether a visa will be granted.
Secondly, if a visa is granted, I feel that it should carry

the right of entry. At present, an individual who obtains a visa and comes to the country is frequently refused entry, possibly for one of the reasons that were canvassed at the time of the initial application. Surely it would be better either to exercise control at the frontier, or—if we are to use visas—to make it clear that, if a visa is granted, the country will be expected to honour the issue of that visa.
As I said earlier, we intend to maintain frontier control. Given that this is an island, there is a certain logic in such action. As and when the channel tunnel starts to operate, however, we may—I use the word advisedly—have to review the position. If the logic of the tunnel is to work, it would be absurd to empty the train of passengers when it arrives at Dover, Waterloo or Stratford, if the nations and regions of the United Kingdom are to benefit. The Government will have to consider that eventually—although, thanks to the present Government's lack of progress and preparedness for the tunnel, it may not arise for some years.
If we abandon frontier controls, the logic of the introduction of identity cards will become overwhelming. Identity cards are unnecessary and will create more difficulties than they will solve. Individual freedom should not be infringed any more than is necessary. I should have thought that the Conservative party, which introduced the poll tax, might think long and hard before introducing another measure that would be as much resented as the poll tax was. That may be why the Home Secretary, who had a hand in the poll tax if I am not mistaken, has at least shied away from that proposal.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) advocated the carrying of identity cards. I do not want my whole life to be reduced to a magnetic strip on a plastic card. I do not want to carry an identity card, because it is not necessary for me to do so. Those who advocate identity cards should think long and hard before continuing to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made an important point on family unity. A Frenchman or a German has more rights to family unity in this country than an Englishman, a Scotsman or a Welshman has. I remind the House that it was not long ago that the Government introduced a measure to allow EC nationals to come here not only with their spouses, but with their dependants. Few Conservative Members were present, but I remember the legislation going through the House. It is ludicrous that British citizens are disadvantaged in that way.
The position of third-country nationals should be considered. I am not sure what the solution is. It is odd that someone who has lived in this country for 30 or 40 years, but who has, perhaps for reasons of sentiment, kept his original passport—such as a Jamaican passport—can be stopped before leaving this country to go to France, for example. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury said that the remedy was to acquire British citizenship. I accept that, but I believe that, if there is no objective difference between that individual now and that individual once he has acquired citizenship, it is logical to consider making his life easier without his having to take that step.
When this country assumes the EC presidency later this year, it should take the opportunity to consider certain matters. If the common frontier regime is implemented with a common information system, under which someone who is stopped at Athens will, in effect, be refused entry to the whole of western Europe, counter-balancing rights


such as freedom of information legislation across Europe must be given to citizens so that people can see what information is held on them.

Sir John Wheeler: rose—

Mr. Darling: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment.
Data protection legislation is also essential to ensure that information is not wrongly held on individuals which discriminates against them. If there are to be controls, there must be corresponding rights.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury commented that the debate has been conducted without rancour and said that he hoped that the matter would not be party political, especially during the election. He should tell that to Conservative central office, to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and to the Home Secretary. All these matters would be dealt with far better on the basis of consensus and without party politics. That would benefit many people in this country and in the rest of Europe. There is common ground if only there is a will to find it. We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider a satisfactory regime on asylum which would suit all of us. I hope that the Government are equal to that challenge.

Sir John Wheeler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: He has finished.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Before I respond to the specific points raised in the debate—which, although it was no doubt fully in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at times took wing quite beyond the two documents of which we are taking note—I will reiterate the general points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made about the provenance of the documents.
He said that they were communications from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament. They give the Commission's views on matters which are not within the competence of the treaty of Rome and which cannot, therefore, be proposals for Community action or the basis for Community decision. They were designed as discussion papers for use in preparing for the Maastricht summit. Although the Commission has no responsibility in asylum and immigration matters, there was a strong lobby for transferring those matters from national Governments to the competence of the treaty of Rome, and thus of the Commission and the European Court.
One of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's signal successes at Maastricht was to ensure that these matters, apart from the list of visa countries, remain with national Governments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others should take some comfort. Family reunion policy has not gone to Mr. Bangemann; it remains with national Governments. The new treaty will confirm that immigration and asylum continue to be matters for intergovernmental co-operation, although discussion and decision will be more coherently structured in the interior

and justice pillar which is being created. That means that Governments will decide by unanimity. They will thus remain responsible to national Parliaments.
Although decisions will continue to belong to national Governments, with no obligation to concur with measures that they judge not to be in their countries' interests, there is general acceptance that in the matter of immigration and asylum, all the countries of Europe face, in different ways and to different degrees, the same pressures and difficulties. It makes sense to consider them together and, when appropriate, to act together. I am glad to say that that seemed to be the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), if I understood him correctly.
There is a programme of work, endorsed by Governments at Maastricht, on which the Interior and Justice Ministers will embark. The comprehensive agenda is summarised on pages 4 to 10 in the Immigration Ministers' report to the Maastricht summit. That is a heavy programme of work and it is unlikely to be completed for some years. At this stage, it is not possible to say what changes the decisions will bring in train to our current rules and practices.
The spirit in which we enter the discussions is pragmatic and positive. We do not seek, and we will not agree to, harmonisation merely for its own sake, but we believe that there is advantage to us in a common approach to common problems. We shall be anxious to find agreement with our partners when it is helpful for us to do so.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked about the progress of the Asylum Bill. Its Committee stage is down for 13 and 17 March. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there must be gaps between various stages in the other place in which the normal business can be brought forward. It is possible with the agreement of both sides somewhat to concertina the process, so there is just time for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to ensure that the Bill is on the statute book before the general election, if they put their deathbed repentance into practice.
I enjoyed the claim by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that he and his hon. Friends have forced fundamental changes to the Asylum Bill. If that enables him to support the Bill at this late stage, I shall be happy. He showed, as usual, an imperfect grasp of what is in the Bill. I realise that he has to fill his speeches with reports of famous victories. If he cares to puff himself up like a bullfrog and call a clarification a concession, that is up to him. It looked only risible to us, but it may impress some of his hon. Friends and some journalists who have not followed the Bill.
I noted that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to want to weaken the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, the primary purpose rule and the Asylum Bill. Everything that he advocated would reduce the effectiveness of our immigration controls. There was nothing in what he said that gave any confidence on that score.
I was interested in what my hon. friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said about identity cards as a guarantee of freedom. I merely remark that no European country which has had identity cards for long finds that they are particularly effective in dealing with illegal immigration. Other countries have their own means and their different practices. But they all have greater problems than we have.
The hon. Member for Greenock—

Dr. Godman: Greenock, not "Grennock".

Mr. Lloyd: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to Greenock. The Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was worried about the position of non-Community nationals in the EC. That is an issue to be addressed by the interior and justice pillar. We want to achieve an arrangement by which those people can at least move around as visitors from the Community if they have established residency in a Community country. We believe that that will be a great advantage and that our minority groups should enjoy that right. However, of course, in Britain they have the opportunity to become British citizens when they have been here for the requisite period.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [21 February].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8810/91, relating to the right of asylum and 8811/91, relating to immigration and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 27th February 1992; endorses the Government's view that harmonisation of substantive immigration and asylum policies among the Member States of the European Community should be taken forward inter-governmentally outside the Treaty of Rome; and welcomes the wide recognition of this principle at Maastricht.

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

[Proposed subject for debate: Report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House (HC20].

7 pm

Mr. Michael Jopling: The topic for the debate tonight is the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice on how wide the debate can go? An Adjournment Debate allows fairly wide discussion. I wonder whether the debate is limited simply to the points in the report.

Mr. Speaker: An Adjournment debate is wide, but it is, of course, limited to the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.

Mr. Jopling: The Select Committee was set up last July and the report was laid before the House a week last Friday. I begin by expressing my gratitude to the members of the Committee, who were extremely hard-working and co-operative. We had 17 meetings in the short time that the Committee was in existence. We have several extremely busy people on the Committee, including the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. We also had two extremely helpful ladies who told us about the problems of lady members. We received a great deal of evidence, for which we are grateful. We were supported by an excellent team of Clerks, led by Mr. Sweetman.
One of the first matters which the Committee had very much in mind was that, when considering altering parliamentary procedure, it is important to seek to do it on the basis of consensus. Many hon. Members will recall that the lack of consensus was probably the reason why the Crossman experiment failed so dismally—I remember it well from when I first entered the House. So I am pleased to report that we have an agreed report. Several votes were taken in coming to that conclusion, but the House will notice from the report that in not one of those votes was the Committee split entirely along party lines. So there was a great deal of agreement, and at the end the report was unanimous.
The first step that we took was to issue a questionnaire to Members. We had a large response—probably the largest of all time. Strong feelings were expressed. It reflected the basic background to the work of the House, which we included in our report. It is that the House of Commons sits for more days and more hours than any other legislative body in any of the large democracies.
In the strongest expression of view, 83 per cent. of those who responded to the questionnaire said that they wanted fewer late night sittings. We all hear continual complaints about the fact that Parliament sometimes sits all night. People say, "How can you reach sensible decisions at 4 am?" Therefore, the Committee's central conclusion is that the main business should end in future at 10 pm. We would like the Government to declare their intention to do that at the start of each Session. Under our proposals, some business could continue after 10 pm, but we hope


that that will be rare and that normally the only business after 10 pm would be Divisions arising from the business up until 10 pm, and the half-hour Adjournment.
Most Members were happy with the existing balance between the time allocated to the Government, the Opposition and private Members. I hope that the report reflects that continuing balance. If the recommendations of the report are implemented, as I hope, there might be one exception to that balance: the report is very much a charter for the Back Bencher. We have proposed that we should extract various pieces of private Members' business —namely, the Consolidated Fund Bill, private Members' motions, the three-hour recess debates and the final day recess Adjournment debates. Some of that business goes on before 10 pm and some goes on after 10 pm. Some of it goes on all night. We believe that it should be extracted and put on during prime time on Wednesday mornings in a sitting beginning at 10 'am and ending at 2.30 pm, when Question Time would start in the normal way.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has the Committee considered the implications of the sittings of the new European Committees, which always sit on Wednesday mornings and already face competition from other events?

Mr. Jopling: That is a good argument for never having morning sittings, and we considered it. But we felt that Wednesday morning might be an appropriate time for private Members' business, because there would be no need for heavy ministerial presence or heavy whipping, and at the same time and there would he the minimum disruption to the line of route.

Mr. David Clelland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jopling: No. The Committee has recommended that speeches by those introducing debates should be no longer than 20 minutes, and I do not intend to get caught on that one.
The Committee examined the possibility of moving the whole parliamentary day forward to start at 11.30 am. We decided against it, for very much the reasons that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) just mentioned. It would be a mistake to start at 11.30 am, with questions from 11.30 am to 12.30 pm, statements from 12.30 to 1 pm or 1.30 pm, at a time, particularly on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, when up to 200 Members may be engaged upstairs in the Standing and Select Committees.

Mr. Clelland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jopling: No, I will not give way. I may give way a little later, but I must get on now.
It was the view of the Committee that that great opportunity in prime time for private Members to raise matters that concern them, together with the 24 hours under the new procedure which we believe will be necessary in future for private Bills, almost exactly matches the present period provided in the once-a-week four-and-a-half-hour sessions.
The Committee's proposals largely maintain the remaining balance between Government and Opposition time in the business of the House. Of course, there will be

a considerable loss of time if we do not sit after 10 pm. Therefore, the Committee suggested that, to compensate in part, we should shorten some of the set-piece debates. It recommended that the Queen's Speech debate should be shortened by one day, the Budget debate by one day, the debates on the armed services by one day, other Government debates by two days and the total of Opposition days by another two days. That would reduce those set-piece debates by seven days.
Therefore, paragraph 61 states that 71 hours of business would be lost if the House did not sit after 10 o'clock. The Committee has suggested a number of ways in which that can be made up, principally by more widespread timetabling of Bills after Second Reading. I hope that hon. Members will distinguish between timetabling and guillotining, which is a different matter, is by order of the Government, and would remain.
We propose that timetabling should either be arranged by a new Committee—set to take care of it—or that each Standing Committee could allot time for all stages of the Bill. Ultimately, the progress of Bills would remain in the hands of the Government.
I must draw hon. Members' attention to the part of our report where we state that we would deplore it if the Government of the day used the device of timetabling to put more Bills into the system.

Mr. Clelland: I should like the right hon. Member to expand on two matters. First, I believe that he is saying that one of the reasons for not having an 11.30 am start would be the complication of having Question Time when many hon. Members are in Committee. Surely that could take place at the normal time of 2.30 pm, even if the main business in the House started at 11.30am. Has the Committee considered that? Secondly, in an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that morning sittings would clash with Committees, but they meet in the afternoons at 4 o'clock now, and that does not seem to prevent us from carrying on with business.

Mr. Jopling: Yes, but in general afternoon Committees meet when essential business on the Floor of the House —Question Time and statements—is over. We considered the hon. Member's other proposition, but we arrived at this consensus and I hope that the House will approve it.
Other time-saving measures would be: first, to refer affirmative statutory instruments upstairs automatically; and secondly, to limit statutory instruments and European documents to one and half hours, regardless of the time at which they begin. Thirdly, we suggest wider discretion for the Speaker to apply the ten-minute rule Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, the 10-minutes rule."] I am sorry, I meant the 10-minutes rule on speeches.
Finally, Ministers should be encouraged to make shorter speeches, and we recommend the abolition of the second Adjournment debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jopling: I must get on. The hon. Gentleman kindly gave evidence to the Committee.
The Committee was conscious of Members' responsibilities to their families. During our deliberations, we heard a good deal about the point of view of women, and we thought a great deal about it. The Committee was


anxious to implant more certainty into the parliamentary year. For that reason, we decided that we would recommend that, early in the Session, 10 Fridays should be designated when the House would not sit, so that Members could make firm appointments in their diaries to visit schools or other institutions which do not function on Saturdays, and would know that they were not likely to have to cancel such appointments, as such cancellations are often not understood.
We also recommend that, on the Thursday preceding Fridays when we do not sit, business should end at 7 o'clock. I believe that that would be for the convenience of the House. I know that many hon. Members cannot get home if they do not get away by 7 o'clock on Thursday or after a vote at 10 o'clock. If they have to go home the following day, the morning is practically over before they get back to their constituencies. I believe that that change would be very much in Members' interests.
We recommend other changes which would make the parliamentary timetable more certain. The Leader of the House should announce at the start of the Session firm dates for the Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun recesses. We believe that a date should be set for rising in the summer, around mid-July. If necessary, we could return during September and October to complete business lost in July. The Leader of the House should start an experiment to announce two weeks business in advance on Thursdays to give us better warning of what is to happen.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned family responsibilities, because that is one reason why there are so few women in the House. Does he recognise that, while the report is a step in the right direction, if we are to make the House more representative of women, we must have more radical reform?

Mr. Jopling: The Committee was somewhat disappointed that, although around 69 per cent. of Members responded to our questionnaire, unfortunately only 59 per cent. of the ladies responded, which we found rather strange.
The Committee has tried hard not to erect buffers in parliamentary procedures, such as an absolute rule that business would end at 10 o'clock or at any other time, or a firm decision to rise on a specific date in July, because we were aware that, if one puts up a buffer in terms of time, one provides a clear challenge for the Opposition of the day to drive the Government into those buffers.
To sum up, the Committee has devised rules to allow the House to proceed with its business as effectively as it does now, recognising the rights of both Government and Opposition, within a modern, sensible time scale. That is the core of our report, which follows fairly closely the advice that we were given helpfully by the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, to whom we are grateful. It follows closely on what they advised us individually.
I hope that the report will be acceptable now and after the election, when I hope it will be discussed again quickly, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I welcome the report as a member of the Select Committee. The proposals are extremely modest. I am not a revolutionary. We must be

careful when we consider the procedures of the House and consider taking one brick out. If we are not careful, without that brick we may bring the place down.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Show me the brick.

Mr. Orme: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall do just that.
The report and hon. Members' experience show that, with each new Parliament, each new group of Members is dissatisfied with the procedures of the House or how it is run.
These proposals are modest, and include two or three central points. One is that Members do not see any value in sitting through the night, as we have often done night after night. Our electorate think that we are made to do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It does not serve any political purpose at the end of the Session. Moreover, as we know, the Government get their business through in any case. We considered that, and have recommended that we should finish at 10 pm on most evenings. That should be the norm, although sometimes it will have to be extended. That is one of the central recommendations of the report.
Linked with that is the proposal that we should know the length of a Session and the dates of recesses. We should have advance information. We should finish in mid-July. That is of particular importance to Members with young families. That is another central recommendation.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the recommendation of an experiment with morning sittings on Wednesday is worthy, and we should take it into account. We considered bringing the whole parliamentary day forward to start at 11.30 am, but there was not a consensus within the Committee for it. I assure her that some of us argued for such a proposal.
We concluded that, where possible, on Thursdays we should finish at 7 or 7.30 pm. It is proposed that that should happen on 10 Thursdays throughout the year, and that on the following Friday there should be no business. The media do not seem to realise that the work of a Member of Parliament is changing.

Mr. Skinner: Where are they?

Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend: the media are not here.
Constituency pressures are increasing rather than decreasing. Consequently, members are expected to deal with an increasing number of constituency cases. It is not always possible to do so at the weekend, as schools, businesses, factories, shops and so on are not always open. It is important to have Friday for that. We are not saying that Members should have more time off; we are saying that Members should deploy their time more intelligently. Frankly, our time is not employed intelligently now.
The timetabling of Bills is a controversial issue. We need a more intelligent approach to Standing Committees on Bills. Over the years, I have spent time battling my way through those Committees, and we need to change our approach. Sometimes we spend hundreds of hours in Committee, and to what useful purpose? At the end of the day, the Government of the day get their legislation through, however much it is opposed. The Opposition


have a right to oppose it as strongly as possible. That happens now. We need to give serious consideration to Standing Committees.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Of course there is an abuse of the Standing Committee system. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that occasionally, in particular when outside bodies give us expert opinions, a Government can be highly embarrassed, or potentially embarrassed, in Committee? Does he further agree that wholesale timetabling, as distinct from selective time-tabling, would reduce that? As the report states that timetabling will tilt the balance to the advantage of the Government, does my hon. Friend think that Back-Bench Members or the public would think that that would keep powers in this House rather than in Whitehall?

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and we discussed the matter in detail in the Committee. There is no easy answer. Therefore, we have suggested that timetabling might be considered by the Standing Committee itself: if it is prepared to timetable the Bill, it could do so. I should like Select Committees to interview witnesses before such debates. The difficulty about that suggestion is that the Government of the day, irrespective of who they are, are opposed to it. There is a conflict between Back-Bench Members who, rightly, want these matters discussed, and the Government, who say, "No, no. We are not having that. We want to get the business through."

Mr. David Blunkett: Further to that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of no advantage to the Opposition or to pressure groups dealing with them to debate anything until 4 am or 5 am? Perhaps I am slightly influenced by the fact that I have had two doses of that on two major Bills this Session. My hon. Friend has much more experience than me, so he has had to put up with this for a great deal longer. Is it not now time that we say to new Members before they become accustomed to the place that they show their radicalism and change our procedures from those of the 19th century to those of the 21st century?

Mr. Orme: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I hope that I am not taking a no-change attitude on account of my experience. Indeed, I want to see change, and I believe that the pressure for change will be greater than ever in the next Parliament.
On that basis, I recommend the report to the House. It is possible to implement its recommendations before the general election, but I hope that after the election these modest proposals will be put into effect. Let us see how Parliament can carry these proposals forward next Session.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the way in which he chaired the Select Committee and on the report that he has produced for the consideration of the House.
First, let me answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) about lady Members. We spent a lot of time in Committee considering

how to address the need to encourage more ladies to become Members of the House. One of the points that was made very definitely to us was that morning sittings would not encourage young mothers into the House. They are much more able to have time with their children in the morning than in the evening when their children are in bed. We considered that the present hours of the House might well be more helpful to young mothers than a major change.
Secondly, as is obvious from some voices in this House, a small number of Members are well able to frustrate the working of the House, without any reform. Too often a few voices have stopped reform when a large majority of Members, not attending this debate, are in favour of the report and would like to see its recommendations implemented.
Before I consider the report, I wish to deal with two matters to which it does not refer. By its terms of reference, the Committee was precluded from examining the size of the House of Commons. We are the largest parliamentary assembly or congress in the free world. I accept that Germany has had to bring together in the Bundestag members from east and west, but it will reduce that number by the emergency resolution on the amalgamation.
There is no doubt that the House sits more days and longer hours than any other Parliament. I wonder whether it would not be more convenient for the country and the House if, after the next election, the House were made up not of 651 hon. Members but of only 450.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Why?

Sir Peter Emery: Because many of the problems that arise would come to nothing if there were fewer hon. Members. It may be difficult to get chickens to vote for chicken pie, but if Parliament decided to order the Boundary Commission to achieve that in 10 years' time, through wastage, positive thinking could bring that about.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend suggests 200 fewer hon. Members, but how many people know who their MEP is? I do not, and, do not need to. Constituents want their individual problems to be dealt with and that is an important job of an hon. Member. If there are fewer hon. Members, those individual problems will be dealt with less well.

Sir Peter Emery: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend does not know who his MEP is, but that is another matter. My hon. Friend has not taken into consideration the fact that, when the House was made up of 450 hon. Members, hon. Members were frequently able to deal with the constituency size that resulted. Bill van Straubenzee was a good example of such an hon. Member.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bill who?

Sir Peter Emery: The Select Committee on the Sittings of the House did not give enough thought to the fact that the work load of a Member of Parliament has vastly altered. The amount of constituency correspondence and the demands on the Member to be in the constituency has altered so much since I first came to the House in 1959. I was then the Member for Reading and worked in Parliament. Today, an hon. Member is meant to be the Member of Parliament in the constituency.
The demands of the work load of the House have changed considerably, and our sitting hours make it very difficult for an hon. Member representing a constituency a long way from Westminster to spend time in his constituency on a Friday. That is why the Committee recommended that the House should not sit on at least 10 Fridays. We shall have to consider the sitting hours of the House again before long when the House reassembles after the election.
The report contains 13 recommendations, and the majority of them have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Of the 13 recommendations, seven were recommendations made to the House by the Select Committee on Procedure over the past three years. They include the recommendations on the allocation of time, affirmative resolutions for Standing Committees, those on statutory instruments and European documents, shorter speeches from the Front Benches—something that the House might accept—length of the parliamentary calendar, greater latitude for Mr. Speaker to use the 10-minute limit, and second Adjournments.
As an aside to the Lord President, I suggest that the reports of the Procedure Committee should be debated far more quickly than they have been in the past. I give my right hon. Friend the greatest praise because he has done more to implement the reports of that Committee than any other Leader of the House for a long time. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for that.
Is the House willing to consider some reform? To suggest that the reforms proposed by the Committee are a major revolution is nonsense. They are just a small move forward. One thing that I have learnt as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure—Chairman for longer than any other hon. Member since the great war—is that it takes considerable time to change our procedures. We move slowly. Such matters need to be considered and thought out with great care, but most of the Committee's recommendations have been around for a long time.
I believe that it is right and proper to move in that direction, and I believe that the opportunity to do so will arise after the next general election. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House to give a commitment to reconsider this matter immediately the House returns after the election. I also ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the Clerk and the Clerks' Department have ready for us all the alterations in the Standing Orders that would be necessary for us to proceed. If my right hon. Friend, whatever position he may subsequently hold, urges that this matter be dealt with swiftly after the election, he should know that the members of the Procedure Committee will give every support to try to ensure that the changes are introduced.

Mr. John Garrett: The House of Commons sits for more days in the year and for more hours in the day than any other legislature in the western world. The American Senate and the Canadian House of Commons sit for half as long, while the Parliaments of France, Germany and Italy sit for one third as long as we do.
One matter not addressed in what I consider to be a timid and disappointing report is why we sit for so many hours. It has been held that we scrutinise more detailed

legislation than any other legislature. The report does not consider what increase or diminution in hours is likely in future because of, for example, the transfer of legislative powers to the European Council. I assume that that transfer of powers must be accompanied by a movement of powers of scrutiny to the European Parliament. Those issues were not put properly in context.
The report contains a number of worthwhile proposals. I agree with the timetabling of Government Bills, which would put an end to the absolutely fruitless guillotine debates. The guillotine was used 22 times between 1945 and 1977. In the 11-year reign of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) it was used 66 times and she had the nerve to lecture us not so long ago about the supremacy of Parliament. We did not see much of that when her boot was on Parliament's neck. I also agree with the earlier announcement of recesses and the proposal to rise in mid-July. I believe that we should finish even earlier and come back earlier in the autumn.
The 10 sitting-free Fridays are tokenism. How many hon. Members attend the House for more than a handful of Fridays anyway? The Friday concession is a diversion from the real issue of whether Parliament should work normal hours.
Parliament was much more robust about such matters 25 years ago. The Procedure Committee of 1966 considered different ways in which the hours of the House could be reduced. In the end, the Committee settled for moving some business to two mornings a week. The Leader of the House, Mr. Richard Crossman, set out a number of proposals for change, including trial morning sittings. I must say that Richard Crossman was a real Leader of the House, unlike some of the recent holders of that title who have seemed to behave like major-domos of the Cabinet. The result was that the House decided to meet on Monday and Wednesday mornings from 10 am to 12.30 pm.
Mr. Crossman intelligently observed that opposition to the proposals came from hon. Members who saw the experiment as
the thin end of the wedge which, if driven home …. might exclude the part-time MP from the House altogether.
There are probably more part-time MPs now than there were then but the matter is delicately skirted in the report. On 14 December 1966, Crossman said:
Up till now, if we are frank, our time-table has been designed to suit the convenience of those part-timers who earn their living outside in the mornings and the whole-timers, often without these economic advantages, have had to lump it ….is it not time we gave some consideration to the needs of those who keep the House of Commons going during the morning hours when the part-timers are earning their living?" —[Official Report, 14 December 1966; Vol. 738, c. 492–93.]
As the House knows, Crossman's experiment failed because filibustering by Conservative Members kept the House up late at night, as it had been before. Despite the morning sittings, the extent of late night sittings increased. As Crossman pointed out, the Government gained from the experiment. In 46 short morning sittings, they secured 20 Second Readings, 12 Committee stages, 18 Report stages and Third Readings, 24 orders and four considerations of Lords amendments.
It is always alleged that there was not enough business for the Crossman morning sessions, but that simply is not true. They were destroyed by Conservative Members who wanted to earn their livings outside the House in the mornings.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garrett: No. I have sworn to Mr. Speaker that I shall speak for only 10 minutes.
The same matter was raised by the so-called "epoch-making" Procedure Committee of 1977–78. In that Committee, which introduced the present arrangements on Select Committees and on which the present Home Secretary, the present Chancellor and Mr. Enoch Powell served, I moved an amendment to that epoch-making report. I shall quote it because it is always worth recycling good material:
We consider that the work of an assiduous Member of Parliament has increased so greatly that it should now be seen as a full-time job and that the arrangement of Parliamentary sittings to enable members to pursue outside employment on the excuse that they need to 'keep in touch' with the everyday world of the Courts and the City is contradictory to our idea of a modern and effective Parliamentary system … The present hours of the House are also a deterrent to legislative efficiency, and are probably harmful to health and disruptive of family life. We therefore propose that the general rule should be that the House should meet in the mornings, afternoons and evenings up to 7.30 pm and not at night. We are convinced that the present pattern of sittings is quite unnecessary, that it is left over from a more leisurely age when Parliament was dominated by the tradition of the gentleman amateur.
The vote on that amendment was a tie, with Labour Members voting for it and Conservative and Liberal Members voting against it. The Labour Chairman—a lawyer—used his casting vote to defeat it.
We shall never be an effective legislature while so many hon. Members have outside careers. I leave aside the conflict of interests that can arise, particularly given the growth of parliamentary lobbyists and public relations consultants. Until we have full-time Members of Parliament, we shall never have adequate accommodation, equipment and facilities.
I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that there should be morning sittings from 10.30 am, that 7 pm should be the end of the main business on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and that we should not sit on Fridays. I expect a Labour Government to offer the House a vote on those matters. Actually, a vote is not necessary, because Crossman left behind a Standing Order that could still be activated to convene the House at 10 am.
A further matter is the gruesome business of dying or very ill Members being inspected by Whips for signs of life —[Laughter.] It is true. They are brought into the House by ambulance and inspected by Whips to see whether they show any signs of life before they can be counted as able to vote. The Procedure Committee recommended 32 years ago that that practice should end.
I should like hon. Members to read—I do not have time to read it now—a letter from the Leader of the House to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, in appendix 11, page 169 of the Select Committee's report. It is entitled "Proxy voting for seriously ill Members". They will see that it is a masterpiece of double-talk. I cannot conceive why the Leader of the House could not agree to proxy voting for terminally or seriously ill Members. To require them to be brought in by ambulance and have their pulses felt by Whips to see whether they can vote is simply grotesque. I do not know how the Leader of the House could write such a letter.
All that bears out the conclusion to which I have come in the past couple of years—many of the powers of the Leader of the House over our domestic arrangements should be transferred to the Speaker. We are too much under the Government's thumb, and this is another example of it.

Mr. Paul Channon: Anyone who was in the House at the time of the Crossman experiment—many such hon. Members are here this evening—will agree that the description of it by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) was a travesty of the truth. The Crossman morning sittings were an utter disaster from start to finish. Moreover, the proof of the pudding was in the eating—subsequent Labour Governments never attempted to revive them, because they knew that they were a total disaster. The lesson to be learned from that is not that morning sittings are necessarily disastrous but that, when procedural reforms are rammed through against the wishes of a large minority in the House, they simply will not work.
As someone who did not sit on the Committee, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) because, when I read the list of Committee members, I thought that it was a miracle that he got them to agree unanimously to the report. Naturally, there were some Divisions in the middle of the Committee's proceedings, but the report's unanimous acceptance is an astonishing achievement.
My message tonight is that the House would be mad if it did not just say yes to the report, even it it thinks that it is a transitory measure. One day a Government may wish to make a more radical reforms. That will be fair enough, but the present reform is generally agreed by a large majority—certainly by a unanimous report of a Select Committee and, I suspect, by many hon. Members, including those who are not here this evening. Whoever is in power after the next general election should try the reform as an experiment, see what happens and then review the matter after a decent period, because the report is full of common sense.
We are in danger of talking about our own convenience in this debate. Surely the whole point is that we must combine our convenience with providing effective scrutiny over the Government. Our opinions are likely to change depending on whether we are in government or in opposition. I have known hon. Members' opinions to change radically when they have changed sides of the Chamber. One wants to be as objective as one can about how one would react on the other side of the House. I consider that the report is a good idea. In recent years, late night sittings, to which most hon. Members are opposed, are much less frequent. We have far fewer all-night sittings, which is a result of the House regulating itself, as it often does with great success.
When trying to reform the sittings of the House, there is a direct conflict of interest between two groups of hon. Members: those who live near to London and want to get home in the evenings and those who come from miles away and want to get home to the north or the south-west, having been stuck here all week. The latter are less interested in whether the House rises early. A compromise that would suit both parties now, even it it does not last, would too good to be true. Already, as a result of the


conflict between the two shades of Members, we have seen that in recent years parliamentary business is now far more concentrated on Tuesdays and Wednesdays than it was when I first came into the House. People complain about Divisions on Mondays and Thursdays now, whereas they were commonplace in the past. Indeed, we sometimes had Divisions on Fridays—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: These days, we sometimes have Divisions on Fridays.

Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend says, we occasionally have them now, but people mind. Nowadays, most hon. Members expect business to be concentrated into a long Tuesday, and a long Wednesday, if necessary. The practice in the House has changed considerably.
The most crucial proposal of all is the timetabling of all Bills. That is a good proposal, and I would think so even if I were in opposition. I can think of almost no occasion on which the Opposition have been able to stop a Bill by talking and talking. Perhaps the only exception was the Bill to reform the House of Lords, when the Labour Government of the day could not obtain a guillotine. I can think of no other example when a Bill was stopped by people talking, either in the Chamber or in Committee, for so long that the Government gave up. The proposal would meet the balance of advantages much better.
Governments are also against that proposal. They have been against the timetabling of all Bills, often because they think that they can get the legislation through the House quicker than a timetable would allow. In the not too distant past, the Select Committee on Procedure suggested the timetabling of Bills, but its proposal was turned down by large numbers of hon. Members. Some were Government Members, and I cannot imagine why they had such a sudden interest in the matter that evening.
Such a proposal would mean that the Opposition would have to change their tactics, but they have already. They would have to concentrate on the earlier half of the day—Question Time and Prime Minister's questions—which is exactly what happens at present. That practice has been very much encouraged by television.
It is clearly stated in the report that most Members think that the present length and balance of recesses is about right. However, I note that the Committee makes the happy suggestion that we should rise two weeks earlier in July. It also implies—I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said something different today—that it would be impossible to come back earlier in the autumn, so where would the two weeks be made up? Would they simply disappear? I should like to have some information on that important issue.
I agree with the suggestion of rising earlier in July. I think that it is intolerable for hon. Members, particularly Scottish Members, should be forced to take the recess so late that they have no time at all with their children during the school holidays.

Mr. Jopling: If my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to look at paragraph 85 of the report, he will see that the matter is mentioned here.

Mr. Channon: It states that it is for the House to decide, but it continues with other arguments as to why that would be pretty well impossible. I shall not weary the House by

reading the report, but it is an important issue that should be cleared up. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is right.
We all have different opinions, but the point that I feel most strongly about is that it is ridiculous that, in a modern Chamber, we do not know on a Wednesday afternoon what we shall be debating the following Tuesday. How can that be sensible? I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to let us have more notice of the business of the House. I am sure that he will try to do so—he may have already said that he will. It is terrible that Members do not know whether they have to be here or whether they can fulfil a constituency engagement or meet some other appointment.

Mr. Tony Banks: That applies to the general election.

Mr. Channon: That may be true, but it only happens every four or five years. I am talking about something that happens every week. The system works well in another place. However, I urge my right hon. Friend not only to allow us more notice of recesses—which would be good, and to our convenience—but, for the convenience of the House, to give notice of what the business may be two or three weeks in advance. Of course, in an emergency the business would have to be changed, but I suspect that that would happen infrequently.
As the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, this is a modest report, but it has been accepted by a Select Committee representing all shades of opinion in the House. I suspect that many hon. Members accept it. Whichever party wins the election should experiment with the system for a year, see what happens and return to the subject after that period.

Mr. James Wallace: I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The proposal is modest and was no doubt achieved through compromise, and give and take by both sides. I accept what he said at the outset—that it is, perhaps, a transient report, but that we should implement it.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the Committee on reaching an agreement so quickly, and I congratulate the Leader of the House on bringing the report before us so quickly. I would very much regret it and consider it a wasted opportunity, as well as a waste of time and effort, if we were not to implement some or all of the report's proposals if it can be shown, as it has so far in the debate—although I am sure that there is a long way to go—that they command widespread support throughout the House.
I find it difficult to object to many of the substantive proposals of the Committee, to which I gave evidence, bearing in mind the proposals that I submitted on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We submitted the proposal that, on Mondays, the House should not start earlier than it does at present, because of the difficulties of Members getting here on time. We also suggested that, wherever possible, the House should try to finish its business by 7 pm on Thursdays. That proposal was substantially accepted, particularly in relation to those Thursdays when there was to be no sitting on the following day, Friday. We


recommended that, even on other Thursdays, every effort should be made to allow Members to leave that evening if possible.
We suggested that Friday sittings should be abandoned, to allow Members more time to be in their constituencies, when offices, factories and schools were open. Alternatively, we suggested adopting the Australian method, whereby alternate Fridays and Mondays are taken off to give extended weekends. The Committee has not gone as far as that, but the proposal to announce at the beginning of the Session the 10 Fridays what will be clear will give people the opportunity to make appointments in their diaries on those Fridays. That proposal will be welcomed by many hon. Members.
At present, for good reasons, there are often great pressures on hon. Members to be here on a Friday, and equally good reasons for them to be in their constituency on the same day. If some forward planning could help us to resolve the problems of those competing pressures, it would, I hope, enhance the quality of work that we are able to do on our constituents' behalf.
I also proposed that, wherever possible, we should aim to finish between 7 and 8 pm. I understand the pressure from London Members to have a 9-to-5 day—

Mr. Tony Banks: Not all of them.

Mr. Wallace: I think some of them suggested it, although I accept that the hon. Gentleman personally has not made that proposal.
Those of us who cannot possibly return home in the evening accept that working to a reasonable hour is not, in itself, unreasonable, but peoplle object when we sit until 2, 3, 4 or 5 am. It brings the House and its work into disrepute. Apart from anything else, I do not believe that, with the best will in the world, we can do a good job at that time in the morning.
Perhaps we do not like to admit it, but we all know that, if we are discussing a Bill on Report, the initial amendments and new clauses are given a fairly thorough debate, but by 11 pm, anyone trying to make a serious contribution that lasts for more than 10 minutes will be told to sit down so that we can complete the business quickly. The later amendments seldom attract the same attention as the earlier ones, although they should do. I welcome the Report's intent that there should be a cut-off point at 10 pm. However, I am afraid that, at present, it will be only an intent—albeit a formalised one.
As I understand it, the process will take the form of a resolution of the House and a statement of intent on the part of the Leader of the House. But, as we all know, it is the easiest thing in the world for the Government to table a motion to allow business that is not exempt to carry on beyond 10 pm. We shall have to exercise strong self-restraint and discipline if the intent is to be translated into something that works and allows the business of the House to finish at 10 pm, followed by a half-hour Adjournment debate.
To that end, we must face up to the timetabling of primary legislation—from which, I suspect, Opposition parties hold back on the basis that time is often their only weapon. There is no doubt that that is more often the case in a hung or balanced Parliament, but it is rare for the weapon of time to stop a Bill, perhaps with the exception

of the legislation on reforming the House of Lords. It is a sad reflection on our democracy if the only effective Opposition weapon is time.
It would be far too radical for the Select Committee or the House to consider immediately or in the immediately foreseeable future the proposals worked out by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the event of a Scottish Parliament. We could examine how procedures for a Scottish Parliament could be adapted to make Parliament work in ways that would enhance the principles of accountability, balance, efficiency and participation. It would clearly be impossible to translate them into use for this place. That is more a reflection on this place and the way in which it has developed and worked over the years than on the proposals of the constitutional convention.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is discounting the effect of open discussion of certain points in Bills. The sheer physical act of stopping a Bill has to do not only with power here but with letting people outside know what is happening so that they can respond. That is the purpose of the Opposition continually raising points about Bills; it is an enormous power, which should not be abandoned lightly.

Mr. Wallace: It is perfectly clear that certain parts of most Bills can be identified as important. The trouble is that, when guillotines are brought in, some parts of Bills lose the automatic right to be considered at all. Twice in this Session, the Government have tried to timetable Bills from the outset—the Local Government Finance Bill and more recently the Further and Higher Education Bill. My party has supported that idea for some time, but it must be put into effect with the consent of the House. There is no point in debating only what the Government want debated. The process must take due account not only of the official Opposition but of all the minority parties and of Conservative Back Benchers.
If a Select Committee on Business of the House is to be set up, it must ensure a proper balance and not operate in the usual narrow channels that we have to put up with when timetabling Bills.
I have noted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am not sure what the thinking behind it was, but I agree with the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny in a Select Committee—we already have provision for such a Committee in our Standing Orders. That would offer a far more effective way of allowing Opposition and other Back-Bench Members to scrutinise legislation properly.
We welcome the idea of announcing business two weeks in advance; that too does not require changes in our Standing Orders. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be tempted to tell us what we will be doing two days from tonight—many of us would be interested to know. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) tried to introduce firm recess dates, with mixed success, while he was Leader of the House. That certainly assists planning.
As a Scottish Member, I welcome the commitment to bring the summer recess forward to mid-July. A week earlier would be even more welcome, but it is an important move. The issue has been discussed every year that I have


been in the House. The Leader of the House has shown some sympathy with the idea, and it is pleasing to see a firm recommendation to that effect.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) mentioned a suggestion which I hope that your successor, Mr. Speaker, will act on in the next Parliament, having convened a meeting of all parties to discuss the matter. It has not happened since 1979, I think, but I remember witnessing the problem as an interested outsider. It certainly did not enhance the image of Parliament when we heard about ambulances queuing up in New Palace yard containing sick Members who could then be nodded through the Lobbies.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South also mentioned that our business will be increasingly scrutinised and debated in the European Parliament, but he singularly failed to say that more of the business of this House should be debated in Parliaments to be set up in Scotland, Wales and possibly in Northern Ireland—not to mention the regions of England. Such a move would relieve the House of a great burden of legislation with which it now has to deal.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This evening I have heard one whingeing Member after another. If any of us dropped dead tomorrow, 300 to 500 people would be clamouring to take our place. If this place is so bad, why is that?

Mr. Wallace: That is not a particularly good point. Just because people want to become Members of Parliament, to debate legislation and scrutinise the work of the Executive, that does not mean that we should not be able to do it more efficiently. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman questioned whether, with larger constituencies, Members of Parliament would be able to offer the same service. Scottish Members, for instance, would give a far better service if issues such as Scottish health, Scottish education and Scottish transport were dealt with by Members of a Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh, and if this House became a federal House dealing with macroeconomics and defence and foreign policy.
The hours lost and gained under these proposals do not seem to add up. Only decentralisation of power from Westminster will ultimately relieve this place of the overload from which it undoubtedly suffers at the moment.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that there can be no question but that this House is too big. I share his view that 450 Members would be about right, and I am sorry that the Select Committee did not have more time to deal with that. The role of welfare officer takes an increasing amount of Members' time, and so long as the House provides adequate secretarial and other support, much of it can be dealt with without any deterioration in service—as a brief glance at the United States Congress will show.
Another crucial point with which the Committee was not required to deal, but which is germane, is the amount of legislation that we pass every year. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I understand that the Bundestag passes about one tenth the amount of our endless stream of laws each year, many of which we cannot even remember the following week. I hope that at some

future date the whole question of how we handle legislation will come under the scrutiny of a Select Committee. Much of our legislation is produced by lawyers for lawyers. If Ministers were a little stronger when managing their Departments, I suspect that we could do perfectly well with rather less legislation.
On the subject of Wednesdays, may I put in a small plea for Select Committees? When first I had the honour to be elected Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, we discussed at length when we should meet. I was tipped off that it would be much better, from the point of view of attracting attention to my Committee, if we did not meet on Wednesday mornings. We tried for some months not to, but with Standing Committees on Tuesdays and Thursdays, not to mention all the other pressures of this place, like every other Select Committee we inevitably finished up meeting on Wednesday mornings.
I have no strong feelings about Fridays. The 10 o'clock vote on Thursday prevents me from getting home on Thursday night, and the idea of the seven o'clock finish on Thursday is very attractive. On the other hand, I do not believe that Friday business often adds to the disruption of Members' lives. Friday business is a problem when private Members' Bills are controversial; as I understand it, the Select Committee did not suggest that such Bills would not be discussed on Fridays, so I doubt whether the suggestion is as meritorious as it might seem on the face of it.
I am a strong supporter of the proposal to timetable all legislation, and I was particularly pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) support that view. Although I had just entered the House when the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was going through, I can count the years that I have spent listening to utter waffle being delivered by hon. Members merely to clock up hours in some hopeless gesture of opposition which proves ultimately futile. We do a great many silly things in this place, but that is surely one of the silliest. Even the public think that it is silly, it has been silly for many years and it is time that it was brought to an end. I therefore commend the suggestion of the Select Committee.
I am worried about statutory instruments, especially those which arouse much cross-party opposition. I have on the Order Paper a prayer with more than 85 signatures against a statutory instrument. It has not been debated in the House or in Committee, and I do not think that the Government propose to find time for it. That is wrong. There should be some sort of unwritten rule about the number of Members who can pray against a statutory instrument and a requirement that time be found for it upstairs. The public do not understand that we legislate largely by statutory instrument and not by laws. Hon. Members would be surprised by the number of issues that statutory instruments change in a year.

Mr. Tony Banks: I support the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Would he support one of mine—that, if an early-day motion, of which there are many, attracts, say, 200 signatures draw from all parties, it should have the opportunity of some debate? If not, what is the point of collecting so many signatures as an expression of opinion?

Mr. Wiggin: I accept that a prayer is in the form of an early-day motion. The difference is that an early-day motion chooses its subject, while a prayer prays against legislation. The early-day motion procedure has been


totally abused. If we all took them much more seriously, the Government would start to do so, but that is another matter.
The principal topic of my speech is the summer recess. I had an Adjournment debate as long ago as 1973 on the subject and I have since brought up my family with the difficulties of an extremely tiresome month of July. Last July was as bad as any. July is hot and London is full of tourists. We become bad-tempered and the Government are pushing against the end of the Session; yet year after year we insist on sitting through July.
Why should we sit in July? We do so because, if we rose at the beginning of July and come back in the middle of September, we would be forced to adjourn again for the party conferences. So what? The party conferences are so large that they have to be held off season in seaside towns, and by mutual consent the time for them is fixed. Are we really so uncivilised that we suspect that a Government would insist on driving on through the Opposition's party conference? I do not think that that would happen, and if we wrote into our Standing Orders that it must not happen, that would solve the problem.
Many Scottish schools go back at the end of the first week in August. The whole of London could well do without us, those who support us and Whitehall. If it is practical to rise in the middle of July, it is practical to rise at the beginning of July. I hope that the Leader of the House will not say that the Finance Bill causes the delay, because the Treasury have made it quite clear that, provided that the Bill is introduced sufficiently early, it can be through before the beginning of July. It is a question of timing. I cannot understand why we should have to go through the heat and misery of July when we could perfectly well rise and come back in September.
I have attended many of these debates and have found that we always debate our own affairs better than anything else because we feel strongly about such matters and speak from the heart. The Leader of the House has heard unanimous agreement from many hon. Members. May we please have some action?

Mr. Tony Benn: The report will not be decided by this Parliament. I therefore wish to address the incoming Parliament, of which I hope to be a Member. It would be wrong to let this occasion pass without paying tribute to the last survivor of the 1945 Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—or Ebbw Vale, which is how I still think of his constituency. My right hon. Friend is the last Member who served in a Parliament which brought here hundreds of new Members who were dissatisfied with the way in which Parliament worked. That led to Herbert Morrison's reforms.
Fortunately, this is an Adjournment debate, and therefore wide-ranging, so almost every issue has been raised. We should be clear when talking about ourselves that the House is a strange place, in that the arguments divide in quite unusual ways. The television reports debates between left and right. There are Government and Opposition, Front Benchers and Back Benchers, London Members and other Members, men and women Members and, of course full-time and part-time Members. But no

one has mentioned the electors. We are here to represent people. We may not like to be here in July when it is hot, but there are many people with problems and, as I am sure many hon. Members agree, those people want their problems raised in Parliament.
This is an insulting Chamber. We refer to the Strangers Gallery when it should be called the Electors Gallery. We have not yet accommodated the changes which occurred in 1832 or, indeed, in 1918 when women got the vote. We still refer to them as ladies. Anyone who wants to see the real division in society should go to the House of Lords, where the lavatories differentiate between peeresses and ladies, lest ladies think that they may go into the lavatories reserved for peeresses. That is a division. We have women Members and we represent women—the assertion that "ladies" have made representations on this or that is insulting.
I will try to relate the proposals to the change in the functions of Parliament. I was elected in 1950—I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I are the oldest survivors of that election. I have broken service, so I shall have to invent some new category—great-uncle of the House, perhaps—after the election. When we arrived here, this was the centre of an empire and we ran a huge chunk of the world. When I was born, about 20 per cent. of the world's population were governed from this Chamber. I remember the campaigns, and there were colonial questions twice a week. Many questions were put down by Fenner Brockway and others, including me.
Britain does not have an empire any more—we are a province. Most of the legislation which affects us increasingly comes through Brussels, and Jacques Delors cannot be bothered to sign it in every language. We are observers of legislation that is never presented to the House. I have views on that, but I shall not go into them now. We have lost the power to determine what we do.
During my lifetime and that of most other older Members, there has been an enormous growth in the power of the Executive. I once worked out the figures and published them, but I have forgotten them. The growth of public expenditure from 1925 until now has gone up by, I think, 6,000 per cent. Yet Parliament still has the same number of Members. The democratic deficit in this country is that Executive power has grown and to some extent Parliament has become a spectator.
The Select Committees do a good job, but there should be far more opportunities for Members to raise matters of urgency. I once moved a motion of censure against your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, because he refused me a Standing Order No. 9 debate about the bombing of Oman. The House is reluctant to discuss current matters. We have not discussed the Gulf war since before it began, and it was difficult to get a debate on the miners' strike. We prefer to go through our regular business rather than discuss matters of concern.
I see this place as a forum where argument is put. I would not mind us meeting every morning as the House of Commons debating society, so that we could discuss the issues brought to us by our constituents. It is almost impossible to explain to a constituent with a problem why it cannot be raised on the Floor of the House. People say, "Tony, why not raise my problem in Parliament?" A few days ago, I was asked why the Prime Minister gets a standing ovation when he sits down. The questioner did not quite understand that Members stand in the hope of


asking the Prime Minister a question. People thought that the Prime Minister was so popular that on Tuesdays and Thursdays everyone rose to his every reply. I tell them that that is a sign of the urgency felt by hon. Members who need to raise matters of concern.
Radio and television have changed Parliament. I shall be candid—I say this outside the House, so I will say it inside the House. What is the point in being a Member of Parliament when decisions are taken in Brussels and the Executive gets away with it? The point is to represent people—to come here and argue their case. We have a secretarial allowance so that we can represent people, although it is inadequate for the volume of mail that we get. We have the opportunity to get a speech in the only newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch—Hansard, which is still a publicly owned newspaper. It is not edited—I am a great Hansard man—and I can photocopy speeches so that people can see what has been said. We can get on television without pleasing the BBC or being cut off by Robin Day—not that one's contribution always gets on the air.
These are not minor matters. It is of no surprise that even the existence of an early Parliament was a threat to the Royal Executive, because while people were discussing in public what he was doing he had to be careful. That is what we are here to do.
I will go over my recommendations so quickly that even you, Mr. Speaker, in your last remaining hours as Speaker, will not rebuke me. If this were a proper debate, I would make several changes. We should be a federal Parliament. The argument for a Scottish Parliament—and others—is overwhelming. We should have a fixed-term Parliament, to get away from all this absurdity of a Government changing the election date so as to manipulate the economy. I believe that 50 per cent. of Members of Parliament should be women. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that he thought that the number of Members of Parliament should be cut by half. I pledge to give him my full support on polling day if we could experiment with his party to see whether we would do better if it had only half its current number of Members.
We should have amendable statutory instruments instead of the absurdity of First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage and the rest. All we should do is look at a measure, decide whether we want to amend it, and pass it once we have done so. That would greatly save time. We could do without the ludicrous debate that we shall have later tonight on Church of England legislation. What are we discussing? It is an absurdity that we should be staying late to discuss arrangements for funerals and the retirement of archdeacons and canons.
I am in favour of timetabling, but for an interesting reason. It is that when one has timetabling—

Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I should like to continue.
Timetabling allows the Opposition to decide what to debate, and that must be right. We should allow the circulation of undelivered speeches in the Official Report. That would get rid of the abuse of early-day motions. They are simply a means of putting one's opinions on paper

because they cannot appear anywhere else. The United States Congress allows the circulation of speeches, and I believe that that is a good thing.
Ministers should circulate on the Order Paper the answers that they are giving to questions as well as the questions. We would then be able to make more use of them. I am in favour of proxy votes. It is an outrage that sick people should be dragged in and that Members on business abroad should be brought back. I remember a Minister having to come back from Tokyo because we thought that there was to be a vote. We must be serious about this. There are other things to do besides play the voting game.
We should have proper secretarial facilities and proper offices. There should be creches not just for the children of women Members but for those of others who work in the House—far more women than men work in the Palace of Westminster. Facilities for staff are appalling, and should be improved. I do not know how many people do as I do, and wander through the bowels of the House. Has any other hon. Member been below Annie's Bar? I was there the other night—it is like wandering around a 19th century battleship.
After 41 years here, let me say this: this place is an old museum. I bring school parties round. The school children know you very well, Mr. Speaker. They love you. They know that you wear a wig, but they do not know what goes on in this place. If one asks them, they say, "We like the decorations. We saw the statues. Who was that over there? Who was Mr. Gladstone?" But they do not know what we do. I often wonder how long it was before the Beefeaters realised that they were not part of the defence force. They must for years have gone on at the Tower of London, marching up and down with their halberds or whatever they carry, thinking that they were defending us. We still behave as though we were a modern, democratic assembly, but we are not: we are a museum, but because it is a museum with a kindly chairman we can sometimes make our case and sometimes the message gets across.
I hope that the anger of the new generation does not subside as quickly as the anger of every previous generation. I see new Members furious with all these things. A year later, one sees them with a party saying, "That is where King Charles I dropped his glove, and that is where Cromwell did this or that." They are so easily corrupted by the club atmosphere. If that anger is not retained and used to turn us into a modern Parliament, we shall have betrayed democracy. My speech is addressed to the new Members. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make it to the generation who will come here after polling day—many of whom, I hope, will be replacing Tory Members.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have found the Standing Orders of this Chamber, like those of any other legislative body that I have come across, as incomprehensible as they are unfathomable. My colleagues who were given the task of reviewing our sittings have done a worthy job, but the outcome of their deliberations is based a design that trims or tickles around the edges of the problem, and their report has been written with the interests of the legislature in mind rather than those of the people who work in it—us, the Members of Parliament.
I make a strong plea for the hours of the House to be regular rather than having this popping in and out at different times on different days. Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I address my plea to the new Members. Our eight-hour day could be set between 11 in the morning and 7 in the evening. Those hon. Members who feel incapable of safely occupying their evenings thereafter could surely use their time in their offices doing work or even perhaps watching a bit of television so as to find out what the rest of the world and the rest of the country are interested in.
For most people, politics is peripheral to their lives. Thank goodness, they do not spend all their time wondering what we are up to. It is important that, as human beings, we keep in touch with what the rest of humanity is interested in. By the time we have spent Friday, Saturday and sometimes even Sunday working in our constituencies, there is not much time left for those with families—both men and women—to know what the rest of the world is doing, to enjoy the ordinary small pleasures of life and to spend time with their families. An 11 o'clock start would give early birds time to get up and do three hours work in the office before the House sat, while a 7 o'clock finish would allow late owls to work into the night while not keeping the rest of us out of bed.
I remind the House of the Peter principle, that work expands to fill the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) made a strong case for limiting the amount of legislation that is passed by limiting the hours available to do so. Almost every piece of legislation that is passed robs some group of citizens of part of their basic freedoms. We are normally regulating to restrict people's activities in some way or another—certainly a great deal of socialist legislation did so. I am pleased to say that the Conservative Government are trying to liberate us from much of that, but we do not need to be here into the small hours of the morning to do that.
Our constituents do not know that we have been up until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and they start ringing us at 8 o'clock, expecting us to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. They do not expect us to sound thick—in voice, if not in mind—because we have only just woken up after another late-night session.
I am concerned especially about the recommendations that bear on private Members' time, such as ten-minute Bills and Friday sittings. I have been a Back-Bench Member for five years, and I quite welcome the possibility that I shall never rise to the dizzy heights or fall to the depths, of the Front Bench. Against that background, I consider it extremely important that private Members' time should be safeguarded. The ten-minute Bill procedure is most important to all Back-Bench Members, and sometimes to our constituents and others. Under the procedure, no one can stop us taking 10 minutes of the time of the House. No one—not even your venerable self, Mr. Speaker—can interrupt us. Those who feel from time to time that they are not getting a fair crack of the whip—they might feel that they are not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye—can make their point by the simple procedure of tabling a ten-minute Bill. It is a procedure that I do not disparage.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he thought that the ten-minute Bill

procedure as rather a waste of time. I have not often found myself at one with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), but he recognised the importance of the facility for private Members, and I am grateful to him for that. I think that all Back-Bench Members welcome the opportunity that the facility provides. Why should there not be three ten-minute Bills a week—on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays?
We all know that we do not have to attend the House on Friday, but Friday sittings can provide important opportunities for us to air subjects in which those outside the House are much more interested than they are in the issues that we consider to be important. For example, there was an important debate on the Alton Bill. For many reasons, Government often will not want to allocate time for subjects that are debated on Fridays, but we are given the opportunity on Fridays to express our interests by using some of our relatively free time to express our support for and interest in various issues. We can show the citizenry that we are taking a subject seriously. Often the issues are subjective and concern the lives of individuals. In other words, they are not related to the rather mechanical legislation that we so often deal with.
We shall come to decide exactly what we shall do apart from regulating time and giving Members more time to be with their families, if they can return home. That is an important consideration. It is to be hoped that there will be more time for us to live like normal people. If they want to, the chaps can go to their gentlemen's clubs. Those who want to work late in their offices will be able to do so. Those who want to take on second jobs can do so in the evenings. I know that the lawyers might be upset, but it is possible to do a little bit of moonlighting if that is what an hon. Member wants to do.
It is most important that the House should safeguard the opportunity for private Members to speak on subjects that may not be currently of interest to the Government. Many of my ten-minute Bills have been ridiculed and derided by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but my post bag tells me that they have received a warm reception outside the House. I have a terrific post bag. I have had the opportunity to persuade my Front-Bench colleagues, against their better judgment, as they see it, to change their minds. I would not be so immodest as to boast of what I have said while presenting ten-minute Bills—things that have moved centre stage and are likely to appear in the Conservative party manifesto for the general election—but that is an example of what can happen.
That is extremely important for Back-Bench Members. We can say to groups of citizens, however small a minority they may be, "I shall introduce a ten-minute Bill on that subject for you." They love it. It is their chance, through us, to have a say in this place, irrespective of whether it is liked by the Government or the Opposition. I beg the House to hang on to the small amount of time that is available to Back Benchers. It is our time, and I hope that no one can take it from us.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is interesting—this perhaps demonstrates the priorities of the Leader of the House—that we are talking about our position and our conveniences rather than important issues such as commercial lobbying. There are two reports from the


Select Committee on Members' Interests and I recall that I drew the attention of the Leader of the House to the issue of outside interests pressurising this place.
I am pleased that the Select Committee wishes to retain ten-minute Bills and that it will not take notice of the Leader of the House or of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Leader of the House, by seeking to place a limit on business questions. I share the view of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that private Members' time is important. Similarly, I think that Fridays are important. I do not share the view of the Select Committee that we should abolish 10 Fridays per Session. That would significantly curtail the likely amount of time available to private Members.
There has been much comment about the waste that is attached to all-night debates. That is not always so. I can recall an all-night debate in 1981 when we were discussing a Consolidated Fund Bill. The House sat throughout the night, largely at the initiative of the Opposition. As a consequence, the Government did a deal which had the effect of removing old people's dwellings from the compulsory purchase procedure. That is one of the most significant gains for the Opposition over the past 10 years or so. It was achieved because of the Opposition's work. All-night sittings do not always take place just for the sake of it. We often sit all night to try to achieve an improvement or a change, or a curtailment of legislation.
In 1981, both the Government and Opposition Front Benches found it inconvenient that Back-Bench Members wished to talk at length about old people's dwellings and compulsory purchase orders, so Consolidated Fund Bills were, in effect, abolished. We now have a series of timed Adjournment debates. The change was designed to remove the opportunity of a further successful initiative.
If a Bill is subject to a timetable, irrespective of whether it is called a guillotine, the initiative shifts to the Government. That is because hon. Members on the Government Benches can take part in the debate and use up time. If time is sucked up by those Members during the hours that are provided by a guillotine or timetable motion, that leads inevitably to the advantage of the Government and is to their satisfaction. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), did not explain the difference, to anybody's satisfaction, between guillotining and timetabling. By and large, they are identical devices. I have strong reservations about the timetabling recommendation.
When I gave evidence to the Select Committee, I recommended that a voluntary arrangement—there was one when the Broadcasting Bill, as it then was, was considered—should be followed. The voluntary arrangement for the consideration of the Broadcasting Bi11 was agreed in exchange for an extra day's consideration on the Floor of the House. If it is said that timetabling is necessary because of the imperfection that is achieved in allocating time for various sections of Bills during the various stages, it should be remembered that an important section of the Broadcasting Bill was not reached.

Sir Gerard Neale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I shall not give way. Several hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I do not want to speak for too long.
The hon. Member for Billericay made some generalised suggestions, including the proposal that we should sit at 11 o'clock—a convenient time after a cup of coffee—and rise at 7 o'clock. The reality is that this place has a responsibility to those outside. Ministers are given powers through primary legislation to produce rules and regulations, which we call statutory instruments. Many of these instruments provide criminal penalties—in other words, people can be sent to prison. Individuals can be deprived of their liberty following the decisions of Ministers.
All Governments use statutory instruments, and if there are complaints about the amount of legislation that is being introduced and enacted, it should be understood that this Government have produced more than most. That has been the position since 1979. I have provided evidence for the Select Committee, and I shall not rehearse it: it is to be found in the second volume of the Select Committee's report, at page 101.
There has been talk about prayers as well as statutory instruments. Last year, about 115 prayers were put down, and only 25 were debated. Those who say that we do not have enough time to debate prayers are right. It is no good talking about reducing the sitting hours of the House for our convenience when it is supposed to exercise scrutiny, when Members want to scrutinise and when we currently fail to achieve that objective. That is so whether the wish to scrutinise is a whim of Members or the wish of those outside this place.
We must examine more ways of debating statutory instruments on the Floor of the House. The Committee's proposal is that all affirmative instruments would go automatically to a Committee upstairs unless the Government put down a motion. At the moment, Back-Bench Members can require an instrument to be dealt with on the Floor of the House—and why not? That is a very useful and important initiative in this place, so that we can stop them going upstairs into Committee, where, by and large, scrutiny exists, but it is not the most successful.
There are between 1,500 and 2,000 statutory instruments, such as the one I have here. It is 74 pages long, with seven schedules and 123 clauses. The explanatory note takes three pages. It is the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1992, and is potentially quite important. It is an affirmative measure, so it will have time on the Floor of the House, but there are hundreds more like that every year. There are negative procedure instruments which are supposed to be subject to a prayer but, in practice, a negative procedure instrument is hardly ever debated in this place. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments deals with all of them, and some are up to 3 in thick—thicker than many primary Acts of Parliament.
That is a matter in which the House is seriously deficient. Until it has a method of properly scrutinising its own prayers, when they have more than a 50 per cent. chance of being debated, we cannot talk about reducing the hours of this place, because the position remains unsatisfactory. I emphasise that we are not talking about paltry bits of legislation just to fill the odd loophole: we are talking about major pieces of legislation which often


impose criminal penalties on our citizens. We should have the right to make sure that there is adequate time for debate.
The idea of curtailing Thursday evening debates is all right for Londoners, but, by and large, several hon. Members cannot get home for tea and come back the next day. We should not talk about curtailing Thursdays, not least because of the argument that I outlined about the lack of time devoted to statutory instruments.
Fridays are important. Some hon. Members say, "If we have 10 Fridays off, we can go to our constituencies." Fridays are terribly flexible. We are not like factory workers or teachers who must be at work or in a classroom by 9 o'clock. We are in a privileged, flexible position. We are not accountable to anybody. We do not have a gaffer stood over us. Our gaffer is the electorate, and it is coming up shortly. If hon. Members want to be away for the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on a Friday, the electorate will tell them whether that is satisfactory. What is wrong with letters telling us to be here on Fridays? If there is a debate on London transport, for example, people in Bradford do not expect me to be here.
As hon. Members know, I attend the House pretty well—I am among the best—but we are highly flexible on Mondays, if there is a one-line Whip, and on Fridays. In any case, we are not here for at least 20 Fridays a year, because we are in recess. We already have a highly flexible position. I appreciate that many hon. Members want to go to their constituencies, but there is already a good opportunity. Therefore, I do not agree with the recommendation to get rid of Fridays.
There is an idea that changes would be better for Parliament, but I do not believe it. It is a question of the attitude of the political parties and of showing much greater encouragement. For example, the Labour party national executive could have expected all the women on the national executive committee to vote in every by-election to put a woman on the short list. That has not happened several times, so we can hardly say that a political party which is calling for more women in Parliament is consistent in its attitude.
The same is true, I am convinced, of the Conservative party. There is not the will in the administration of the Conservative party to ensure that women are elected to Parliament. Men or women, there will be the problem that Parliament is in London, and if hon. Members must travel from the provinces, they must travel 200 to 400 miles. The idea of shorter hours is okay for people who live in London, but it is not so good for people who live in the provinces.
It is not a matter of occupying ourselves in the evenings—there is lots of work for all hon. Members all the time. The idea that Parliament can abandon its responsibility for scrutinising legislation, for one thing, and for giving people the opportunity to hear their points of view expressed in debate, is important. The criterion for me and many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is what we represent for the people who sent us here. It is wrong to put our convenience first. We should be asking, "Can we deal with our constituents' problems—the problems of the nation—in the hours we have?" The real answer is that we cannot, so the idea of curtailing the hours is not practical.

Sir Dudley Smith: I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I sympathise with him on the scandal of the scrutiny of statutory instruments. Obviously, something needs to be done about that matter, otherwise our procedures will become totally unwieldy.
I cannot claim to be as long-serving as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but man and boy I have been here for 30 of the past 32 years and I hope still to be here, with any luck, in the next Parliament. In that time there have been enormous changes, but the one big thing that has not changed is the ridiculous hours. People outside regard as extraordinary the hours in which we conduct our business.
One of the things that has changed is Government business, which has expanded during my time in this place. Over the past 20 years, it has changed beyond recognition. There is far too much legislation. Much of it is ill digested, as we know, bearing in mind the tremendous number of amendments that must be made to major Bills, giving great opportunities to the Opposition—I say that quite fairly—to debate and to extend the proceedings. Governments of any colour should get their legislation more or less right before they bring it before the House.
I welcome the report, which I read with great interest. It will carry us not just a little step but a big step forward if it is implemented. My worry is that it will not be implemented in the spirit on which it was presented. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say whether there is a definite commitment to it by the Government. If, unexpectedly, the Labour party wins the election, I should like a similar commitment from the Opposition spokesman. When parties take over, they legislate very strongly indeed. I cannot imagine Labour Members easily giving up the chance of having open-ended commitments on many Bills. I believe that the Conservative party will remain in power—this is not a political debate—but my worry is that, if it stays in office, the Executive will still run the proceedings in the way that it wants.
I detect in the report the dead hand of buraucracy, not least in paragraph 84, which is about the summer recess. The Treasury does not like it. It says that we cannot have a fixed date in July and that the date must be brought back. Perhaps, as has been suggested, that is because it wants the Finance Bill to be passed earlier. The Treasury rules many things in this place and it has put its foot down in this case.
The other point in the report which irritated me tremendously is that those who organise the two main party conferences are absolutely against any change. The built-in bureaucracy of the Labour and Tory parties' conferences would not consider any possibility of the date being moved. I do not believe in such things. As we are making significant changes in the House, our own party machines should respond accordingly. If the worst comes to the worst, and changes cannot be made, I see nothing wrong in Parliament adjourning for the fortnight that would cover the two main party conferences.
I may be naive, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can enlighten me as to what is meant by primary legislation. Is it every Government Bill that comes before the House and receives a Second Reading? If so, it would break the rule of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling),


and all such legislation would sail on past the 10 o'clock barrier on Report and Third Reading. Perhaps I am wrong, and primary legislation means only the most significant Bills in a particular Session—perhaps only one or two. However, as I take it, with all the legislation that is to come, a number of Bills may break the 10 o'clock barrier.
It has to be said again that the House needs sensible organisation in terms of a timetable. There is general agreement that there should be fewer late nights. We also need better debates. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South, because I believe that, when legislation is timetabled, our debates are better. Both sides are treated equally, instead of Government Members being told to shut up in Committee. The feelings of right hon. and hon. Members are more genuinely reflected in timetabled debates.
It would also be sensible to schedule less sensitive business out of prime time, when it can be considered, if not voted upon, by those right hon. and hon. Members who are particularly enthusiastic about it.
There is no secret about Fridays. When I sat as Member of Parliament for a London constituency for six and a half years, I attended the House every Friday and usually took part in debate. Now I rarely, if ever, attend the House on a Friday—not because I am playing hookey but because that is the only day on which I can see people in the constituency at their place of work during the working week. They expect me to be there. They are not at all interested in Friday debates, unless they concern an extraordinary Bill such as that which the House considered the Friday before last.
I welcome the proposal for shorter debates on the Budget and the Loyal Address, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider why those particular debates are so popular. I believe that it is because they are not subject to the Whip, and right hon. and hon. Members take the opportunity to get away, unless they intend to participate.
I want all Government Bills to be timetabled, and I am sure that that will happen in due course. I am certain that, with the co-operation of Members of both Front Benches, we will have fewer late nights, and that that will work out well. I hope that there will be not an experiment but a definite commitment that will be added to as the years go by. I hope also that I am wrong, and that ultimately the Executive will not prevail and cut the Select Committee's proposals to a minuscule level.

Mr. William Ross: The Select Committee's report seems to set out to give right hon. and hon. Members more time to spend in their constituencies and to make their lives easier, by means of a briefer parliamentary day and shorter sittings. It also holds out the hope of longer notice of recesses, of which I certainly approve.
No one questions why right hon. and hon. Members need to spend more time in their constituencies. Reference was made to the tremendous expansion in the volume of Government legislation, but I believe that right hon. and hon. Members need to spend more time in their constituencies because the House is doing more and more of the work that should be the responsibility of local government.
We do not have a proper local government system in this country. Its structure has broken down, and Members of Parliament are the victims of the backlash. It may be that right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are more keenly aware of that than most, because Northern Ireland has no real local government. Instead, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, its business must be dealt with by the Order in Council procedure, which is an abomination. Nothing can be properly scrutinised or rationally discussed in that way, and the sooner we are rid of it the better.
Most Northern Ireland business could be transacted by what we in Northern Ireland call the theft clause—such as that incorporated in the Theft Act 1978—whereby Northern Ireland can be included in British legislation by a short statement to the effect that its provisions extend to Northern Ireland. We have asked for that to be done during successive Conservative Administrations, and during the last Labour Government as well, but we did not get anywhere. There would be an enormous saving in the time of the House if that simple procedure were adopted. That could still be done, and it should have been done long since.
Another way of lifting the burden of parliamentary business would be to let local government deal with local matters. It is difficult to do that in a unitary state, although it was successfully achieved under the Stormont devolved system. However, it worked only because it was run by unionists. The Opposition consisted of nationalists. That same situation will inevitably be reached in Scotland, whether the Scots like it or not. If one has a devolved institution or more powerful local government, there is a responsibility to work with the Government of the clay, regardless of their political complexion.
If much of the minutiae is delegated to local government, that will free right hon. and hon. Members to put more pressure on the Government. I am not sure that the Government want that. Governments do not like Members of Parliament breathing down their necks. It is our fault that we have become bogged down in detail. The sooner we shift it on to other shoulders, at a different level, the better.
Earlier, reference was made to the United States Congress. Congressmen are permitted to employ as many as 18 full-time staff, but they each represent as many as half a million people. No right hon. or hon. Member has half a million constituents. Few of us have 100,000 constituents. I did so once, and have just over 75,000 constituents now. That is quite enough, thank you. If we go on as we are, we must either shift some of our business on to local government or have a much larger staff. I do not see that the House could ever justify the vast increase in staff that would be needed.
It is difficult to make life easier for right hon. and hon. Members because the House has arrived at its present procedures after long experimentation and experience, during which the best way of performing the tasks that are the responsibility of the House have been refined. I do not take very kindly to hon. Members who complain about the conditions of employment that they find here. We are all here by choice. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said that, if he or any other hon. Member fell off his perch, there would be 400 or 500 other people after his job. We all know that is true. No one has to stay here. Every right hon. and hon. Member could


choose to leave tomorrow, permanently. None of us has to stand for election again; we could apply for the Chiltern Hundreds and leave.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Is it not important for the House to be as representative as possible of the population outside, and should not we therefore act in ways that will encourage a representative and not a peculiar group of people to become Members of Parliament?

Mr. Ross: I was just coming to that. Coming to this place is not an easy option for any man or woman; so why are we here? We are here because we strongly believe in certain things. We are here to put our points of view, and to argue for what we think is right—and we must make a harsh choice in order to do that.
Life would be much easier for me if I were back running my farm in Northern Ireland: I would not get up every morning knowing that I was a target. It would be much easier for all hon. Members to return to their offices, or to other nice, safe nine-to-five jobs. As I have said, we are here because we believe in certain things; that is the simple, straightforward reason why we became Members of Parliament. There is an old saying in Northern Ireland—if you make your bed, you lie in it. It is a bit like marriage. Having come here of our own choice, we should accept the conditions, work the system and make the best of it.
I believe that there are good reasons for the long-drawn-out debates, the all-night sittings and the rest of it. The aim is to put pressure on the Government, whichever party is in power: we are not here to make life easy for them. A large chunk of the report, however, seems to be intended to make life easy for the party managers. Every Back Bencher and every Opposition party should oppose the proposals for that reason.
The Leader of the House was nodding a few moments ago, but he did not like what he heard when it was brought home to him. I am sorry about that, because I believe that what I am saying is entirely accurate. We should use the opportunities that are presented to us, and I am happy for us to keep the House open all night every night to put pressure on the Government. Like every other hon. Member, I had to make sacrifices to come here, and I am prepared to put up with the conditions. Hon. Members who have not the guts for it should get out of the frying pan.

9 pm

Mr. Michael Spicer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the hard work that he and his Committee put into the report. I am afraid, however, that I have strong reservations about a number of points—some of them along the lines of those expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).
We should judge the proposals on two criteria. First, what do they mean for the ordinary Member of Parliament? There are two ways of looking at his needs. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) cited the need for "slots" enabling hon. Members to intervene on urgent matters. Morning sittings could well

provide extra time for those, but hon. Members also need to be able to join in on the big issues of the day. The debate on European matters which took place before Christmas is one of the most recent examples: I believe that only about half the number of hon. Members who wished to speak in that two-day debate were allowed to do so.
I think that I am right in saying that 11 days were allocated to the great debates on the Corn Laws in 1846, so that every hon. Member who wished to speak could do so. I feel that that principle should apply to all big debates. Every hon. Member who wishes to speak on one of the many major issues that arise should be able to do so, on behalf of his constituents. Unless a great many days are set aside for such debates—as used to be the case—the only way to fit in every speaker is to carry the debate past 10 pm. In most cases, such debates will probably need to be open-ended. That is my first reservation: I believe that ending debates at 10 pm could further curtail the time available for Members of Parliament to speak on major issues, and I do not see why such a hard and fast rule is necessary.
My main reservation, however, goes much deeper, and relates to an issue touched on by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East. Our Parliament, although not exactly unique, is rather different from most Parliaments around the world—and very different from, for instance, the American Congress. Here, we have not a division of powers between the Executive and the legislature, but an integration of powers. There are good historical reasons why the Executive controls the legislature, as in effect it does; there are sound constitutional reasons why that has come about over hundreds of years. In any event, by and large, that is what happens. If there is to be an independent or quasi-independent role for the legislature in our constitution—I do not accept that we have yet lost all our influence and power to the European Parliament, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, although I accept that we must fight back to preserve and strengthen this Parliament—the only weapon that those involved in legislation have at their disposal is time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said that one of the great attributes of the report was that it gave a degree of certainty. We do not want that; if we are legislating, we want the opposite. We want to be able to surprise the Executive on occasions. The whole purpose of Parliament is to some extent destroyed and demeaned if we have a Parliament which sits from 9 am to 10 pm. Presumably, we shall later have push-button voting to make ourselves even more modern. People have said that the proposals are a first step in the right direction. I presume that push-button voting will be the next good step in the move towards everything being clean, clinical and working perfectly. For whom? For the Executive—that is what making things more efficient means.
I argue strongly that if we are to have any type of independent Parliament, which is especially difficult under our constitutional system, there must be the capacity for hon. Members, either represented by their Whips or as individuals, to be able to negotiate with the Executive from time to time. The only basis on which negotiation can take place is on the aspect of surprise related to time. Time cannot be a totally predetermined commodity in Parliament.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the hon. Gentleman hold those views when he was a Minister?

Mr. Spicer: I have always held those views. I spoke about them publicly when I was a Minister. I have been in opposition and in government, and I have been on the Back Benches and on the Front Benches. Throughout my 18 years in the House, I have held the view that Parliament must have independence, although that is difficult under our constitution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has worked hard on the report. The proposal, which he identified as the core proposal, for the House to sit from 2.30 pm to 10 pm, is the one about which I have most reservations, for the reasons that I have given.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. So far in the debate, I have called hon. Members who were not members of the Committee. I wish to call some who were members of the Committee. I understand that Front-Bench Members will seek to rise at 9.40 pm and will take 10 minutes each. If hon. Members who are now rising limit their speeches to, say, five minutes during the next half hour, all of them are likely to be called.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A Whips Office is a very fearsome place. When I first came here, I was told that Whips should always be regarded with great care because they were the business managers. Their job was to get legislation on to the statute book or, in the case of the Opposition, to do whatever they could to snarl up the legislation. I regard that as a proper role, and I understand it. Those who seek to take from individual Back-Bench Members the powers that have remained fundamental for everyone in the country for many hundreds of years do so at great peril to our civil rights.
The point that most concerns me about the report is the fact that so many Front-Bench Members, both Government and Opposition, find it quite acceptable to cut the amount of time left for legislation and to move the number of days available. There seems to be an assumption that Back Benchers speak only on private Members' matters or concern themselves only with ten-minute Bills. Those are all important, but Back Benchers also speak on legislation when there is an important subject and a long debate.
Those who suggest that power should seep down to regional authorities and up to the European Parliament have a duty to tell the House how well those authorities do their existing work. It is clear that the European Parliament does not exercise even the powers that it has at present to audit the behaviour of many of the most expensive of the Community's institutions.
I believe that, if the report is implemented, we shall lose a great deal of private Members' time. If we want to change the way in which the House operates, let us seriously consider increasing the powers of the Select Committee, increasing the powers of individual Members to have a direct effect, and making it possible for them to involve themselves at every level.
Richard Crossman, who spoke all the time about the need to experiment with the House, did everything he could to shut down the Select Committees that he had helped to set up. That is a lesson that we should not forget. We should not always think of Front-Bench Members in

terms of what they tell us they intend to do. We should think about what they have done and what they will do if they obtain extra powers.
Back-Bench Members in this place, whether male or female, tall, thin, quiet, overwhelmed, from a Northern Ireland background or from any other part of the United Kingdom, are the ones who matter most in the House. They are the people for whom the place was created. Their power derives entirely not from anything that Front-Bench Members organise but from those who elected them. The electors are the people who will be most damaged by a curtailment of the powers of private Members.

Sir Gerrard Neale: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has had considerable experience in the House on both the Back Benches and the Front Benches. She certainly speaks with considerable authority.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is not in his place, said that he was against the timetabling of Bills. However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his colleagues on including it in the report. There is a fundamental difference between timetabling and guillotining. Timetabling means that, from the beginning of the consideration of a Bill, the time for considering the whole Bill is bracketed, whether it be 100 or 120 hours. With a guillotine there are 100 hours of debate on one clause or one and a half clauses, and the rest is whistled through in no time. That seems a bad way of dealing with Bills, so I support the principle of timetabling.
The point that I wish to make has been picked up by several colleagues, who referred to the word "certainty". The point is linked with that made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about constituency representation. I come from a constituency in the far south-west. For the most part, members of the public have a healthy view of politics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, politics is not an immediate part of their lives. People do not much care what we get up to between Mondays and Thursdays. If we want to sit all through the night, it is something that Members of Parliament do. But if they arrange a month or six weeks ahead for us to attend a meeting on a Friday, they expect us to keep our commitment to be there. In my experience, they do not respect the iffing and butting that they hear from the majority of us.
Irrespective of their party, Members of Parliament come from various walks of life in which they previously gave commitments to attend meetings. But when they become Members of Parliament, they get into the way of, being much less determined and using the way in which the House works with lack of certainty. That is not only unfortunate but unfair to those we represent.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will accept the report's recommendation that he should give more than one week's notice of the business of the House. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we cannot plan better than that what goes on in the Chamber. I think I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that, if we are to hold surgeries, quite apart from other meetings, as I do in many villages in my constituency—I know that some colleagues do not do so


—they must be advertised in local newspapers and we must give notice of the times. They have to be dealt with ahead of time. It is ridiculous that we cannot plan our proceedings better. It causes considerable stress to the people that one arranges to meet in one's constituency, and to one's family. Lady Members of Parliament feel more strongly about that issue, and have alerted us to it more effectively than we male Members care to accept.
It is important to have more certainty, and the Committee should be congratulated on tackling the problem by suggesting that there should be 10 Fridays when we do not sit, and early closing at 7 pm on the preceding Thursdays. Perhaps that is not the best way to deal with the problem, but the Committee has given the matter considerable thought and has come up with a unanimous report. The House should accept that. I hope that, if nothing else, those on both Front Benches will press the Leader of the House to give more notice of future business, and to accept the Friday and Thursday early-closing suggestions.

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall try to follow the example of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg rather than that of Fidel Castro, in terms of my contribution—

Sir Peter Emery: How long did Lincoln take?

Mr. Banks: Two minutes.
I do not like the idea of giving up Fridays. There is no need for the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) to be here on Fridays, as we rarely vote on that day. I understand that the reason why Conservative Members like the idea of giving up Fridays is that it means a waste of time for some of them, due to some nervousness on the part of the Government Whips, who keep so many of them here on a Friday in case something embarrassing crops up.
Fridays are valuable for Members representing London constituencies, as it gives us an opportunity to speak. Quite a friendly crowd turn up on Fridays to debate matters which are not of great import, but which give us the chance to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said we are here to do—to represent the interests of the people we are elected to represent.
There is no reason for hon. Members to be here on Fridays if they do not want to be. I do not like missing the opportunity to raise matters in the House. This is a peculiar place, as we probably all understand. It is one of the few places where one is penalised if one works harder. If we turn up regularly, as one or two of us do—I recognise a few hon. Members around the Chamber—we always see the same people, although there are 650 Members. I have always found that intriguing. I still from time to time bump into Members that I do not recognise.
The fact is that, if we come here regularly and work hard, we are told when we want to speak—by someone who occupies your seat, Mr. Speaker—that we have spoken x number of times. Why the hell are we supposed to come here, if it is not to speak and to vote? Yet some hon. Members stroll into the Chamber after six months of doing whatever they have been doing, and whoever is in the Chair calls them because they have not spoken for six

months. They have no right to expect to be called by you, Mr. Speaker, if they have not been in here for six months. Those of us on what might be called the Stakhanovite wing of the party should not be penalised in quite the same way.
I have always supported the idea that whoever occupies the Chair should have the discretion to say, "We're running out of time; don't be greedy." It is surprising how selfish Members of Parliament are. They have prepared a speech and they are going to deliver it, come hell or high water, notwithstanding the fact that a large number of other hon. Members are sitting around waiting to speak. I have always found that one of the most unreceptive audiences is made up of people who are waiting for one to stop speaking so that they can start.

Mrs. Marion Roe: As requested, I shall be brief. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee. Our comprehensive analysis of the brief presented to us has produced a balanced report, and I hope that the House will fully support our recommendations. To our critics, I would just say that it is not as easy as it looks.
For many years, there has been a notion, which was repeated this evening by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), that the sitting hours of the House have deterred women from seeking election because they fear that the long hours and late nights will interfere with and undermine their time with their family. It is not just women who suffer from that; male Members of Parliament also find our working hours burdensome. They have equal difficulty in arranging family life to fit in with the long hours that we are expected to work at Westminster and in our constituencies.
Some have suggested that, by moving the sitting hours of the House to fit the usual timetable of a working week, from 10 am to 7 pm, mothers would be able to get back to their families and spend some time at home in the evening, so the family would benefit. That is not a cure-all. They forget that very young children are usually in bed asleep in the early evening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said earlier, that being the case, it would surely be better for the young mother to be with her infants during their waking hours in the morning. As I have raised three children without the help of any nannies, I am probably qualified to make points on this matter.
The fact that more women are now presenting themselves for candidates' lists shows that there is no shortage of initiative and talent. Better education and wider career prospects have encouraged women to seek wider opportunities in political life. It is for the selection committees to give them a fair hearing. Let us make no mistake: being a Member of Parliament, whether male or female, is a very demanding job and will continue to be so even if the recommendations bring about changes in working practices in the House.
The recommendation that the main business should generally finish by 10 pm will be welcomed by everybody. It must be a step in the right direction.
The proposal that 10 Fridays should be designated at the beginning of the Session as non-sitting days, and the suggestion that we should finish business by 7 pm on the preceding Thursday will be of enormous help to Members, male and female, with distant constituencies—certainly in


terms of family life. To finish business on Thursdays as often as possible by 7 pm will enable many Members to be with their family for a longer period. That must be right if Members are expected to participate in constituency work at the weekend. Even when children grow up, parents need to be around. Greater certainty of recess dates will also provide benefits for family life by reducing pressures on time that can be spent at home.
Some will argue that the recommendations do not go far enough. I am afraid that disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman): I believe that the recommendations are sensible, workable and sensitive to the needs of the Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers, as well as to our constituents and our families.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: When I served on the Committee, I was particularly concerned about two issues. Democracy is not as strong here as we in the House sometimes try to pretend. Many people are sceptical about our democratic rights. I wanted to see how we could become more effective in the House and more representative of the population. Both are important elements of democracy. My main anxiety was that the Committee was so constrained in what we could consider that it was difficult to address those two issues.
The main way to achieve more representative government with more people interested in how and what decisions are taken is to have much more devolution. That is also a more effective way of getting more women and working-class people involved.
Anyone who wants to come to Westminster as a representative knows that he or she will not lead a normal life. If one wants a normal life, the last thing that one would do would be to put oneself forward as a Member of Parliament. However, although we are part of a system that means that normality is not an option, we still have a responsibility to know, understand and be part of as much of the life of our constituents as is humanely possible, given the constraints of the job.
In considering how Parliament could become more effective and representative, I listened carefully to those hon. Members who have experiences other than my own. I confess that my views are prejudiced by the fact that I have been a Member in a Parliament in which the Government have had a huge majority which they have been prepared to use ruthlessly. That means that l have not experienced the position in which a Government have had a tight majority and the Opposition have been able to use time as a weapon. In my experience, if the House sat for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, we would not have an effective Parliament. It is not the length of time that is important; it is the way in which we use time most effectively, which will allow us to scrutinise legislation properly.
I should have liked the Committee to consider other matters, but its terms of reference were specific. However, I believe that the Committee took some steps forward and that it came down much more on the side of those hon. Members who have constituencies and families outside London. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks): if his constituency and home were 250 miles from London, he would not enjoy Fridays in the same way.
We have a full-time job, but we have responsibilities in Parliament and in our constituencies. I employ people who work in my constituency. As an employer, I have the responsibility to meet my secretaries and assistants at least once a week. I should be able to do that without insisting that they should be as lunatic as me and work on Saturdays and Sundays as well. Being in the constituency on a Friday has become important to me. I want to do that without neglecting my responsibility to Parliament.
The Committee heard numerous views that it wished to accommodate. I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and agree that our rights are critical for democracy and civil rights. However, sitting all the hours available is not the most effective way in which to defend those rights. If the House cannot organise itself effectively, what right do we have to pretend that we can organise the rest of the country?

Mr. Michael Stern: I have two brief comments to make. The first is about Members being forced to vote or being encouraged to vote when they are seriously ill. Some suggestions have been made to ameliorate the problem, and I very much reject the attitude—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hinted at it—that there is no such problem. That problem is not confined to those periods when normal arrangements break down or when the Government have a tight majority.
There have been occasions when the Conservative party has been the Government, with a normal and natural majority, and when there was pressure on hon. Members to risk their health by sitting in ambulances or in overheated taxis in New Palace Yard simply because of ineffective whipping or because a wrong view had been taken about the nature of the business. I remember it happening to me. I had the pleasure of sitting in New Palace Yard with a high temperature, when my doctor had insisted that I stay in bed, in order to form part of a majority of 126 on two separate votes.

Mr. Tony Banks: More fool you.

Mr. Stern: I agree, but unfortunately we are all, from time to time, at the mercy of the vagaries of those who are appointed to advise us on the nature of the business. The attitude so far evinced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on alternative systems of voting for sick Members is simply not good enough and needs to be reconsidered.
The second point that I wish to make concerns a group of Members who have not been considered so far in the debate. May I make a shameful admission? A few of my best friends are members of the Government. Although long sittings are inefficient from the point of view of ordinary Members, we should remember that they are not necessarily efficient for the good government of the country. When we play our party games here, we can make matters much more difficult for members of the Government to carry out the job which we ask them to do and for which they are paid. That is the role of the Opposition and of Back Benchers. I hope that, in considering the length of sittings, we shall also consider the


fact that there is a group, who, although sometimes spoken for by Front-Bench Members on both sides, are entitled to consideration as Members of the House.

Mr. John McFall: I was privileged to serve on the Select Committee as a recently elected Member in 1987 and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on his chairmanship. I learned a lot from sitting on the Committee.
It has already been said that any change recommended by the House usually results in an increase in Executive powers. I am worried that that may happen as a result of this report. We have a democratic deficit, as illustrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who called the House a museum. After sitting on the Committee for many hours and listening to experienced and inexperienced Committee members, I could not agree more. It is the hardest place in the world to change.
I tabled an amendment concerning sick Members. The Committee has received a reply from the Leader of the House on that issue, but his reply was nothing short of disgraceful. He has clearly not given his attention to the issue. We must consider whether we are a civilised Parliament and, if so, whether we should allow people to sit in ambulances in New Palace Yard. It is a grotesque spectacle that has never been dealt with before. The experienced members of the Committee were more against my amendment than inexperienced members. Perhaps that tells us that this place should be demolished so that we can start again, because it is extremely hard to get anything done here.
The amendment asked whether we could put our trust in a medical person, who has the trust of the House, to ensure that no sick or dying Member came to the House. Need we repeat the mistakes of the 1974–79 Government, when three hon. Members were brought to the House in that condition? One was the late Frank McElhone, who was forklifted on to a plane in Glasgow airport and brought here so that he could lie in a room and be passed as fit to vote. That action is inhuman and barbarian, and it must stop. I am glad to note that my amendment was passed, albeit with a slim margin of seven votes to six.
The holidays in July are another issue of concern to me as a Scottish Member. Last year on 29 July, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I was questioning the Secretary of State for Defence. One month previously, on 29 June, my family had their holidays and I had no time with them. I am expressing not just my point of view but that of other Scottish Members. If we have any interest in the welfare and well-being of Members and Members' families, surely we must do something about that aspect.
I was keen that we should have at least two weeks' notice of business. To be honest, I think that we should have more notice than that. A women's guild in my constituency sent me a letter last June inviting me to address the guild on the evening of Thursday 13 February this year. I wrong back to thank the guild for the kind invitation, but said that I could give a definite answer only

the Friday before. That system must be changed. Can we make some advances so that we truly represent our constituents?
I accept the timetabling aspects of the Committee's proposals, which represent a good move, but the value of the Floor of the House for debate has been debased. We seek to scrutinise legislation and pin down the Executive. My experience over the past four or five years is that the Floor of the House has proved an inadequate place for me to air the cares and concerns of my constituents.
If this timid report is to do anything, it will advance change a little bit, so we should accept it. But as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, we are here to represent the electorate, who are insufficiently represented. The report makes only a small advance, and we must remember that.

Mr. Roger Moate: I wish to make just three points. First, the Committee skilfully produced a report which cleverly reflects the views expressed by the House, particularly the concern about late hours, as well as more obvious follies.
Secondly, much to my surprise, I have come round to the view that limiting speeches to 10 minutes is an acceptable and sensible approach. That rule should be applied as the general rule, with a number of exceptions. It should certainly be widely used in a large number of debates.
The third point involves a serious reservation. I am glad that this debate puts down a marker for the new Parliament, rather than trying to impose suggestions on the new Parliament. The broad acceptance of timetabling —the difference between timetabling and guillotines is marginal—has come as a great surprise to me. Of course we take advantage of timetabling, and are always grateful when a timetable is imposed. However, I regard the general acceptance of timetabling as one of the greatest abdications of a Back Bencher's power over the Executive, and see it as a reflection of Governments with large majorities.
I would always choose to be on the side of a Government with a large majority, given that option. Often Parliaments are not like that, however, and there are Governments with small majorities. In those circumstances, for the Opposition to give up the right to use time is an enormous sacrifice. The next Parliament could look different, were there to be a majority of just 20 or 30 for either party, and to give up such a power for the sake of certainty and timetabling is dangerous.
It is not just a matter of defeating Governments, which does not happen often. Through the use of time, one can secure concessions, and deals can be struck between small numbers of rebels on either side. I recall when Opposition Members and I helped to defeat a Government Bill. Unfortunately, it came back the following year, but we used our power. If we give up that right, I believe that Back Benchers and Opposition Members will probably be surrendering one of their greatest powers. That issue should be carefully considered in the next Parliament, not determined in this one.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wish to speak about a couple of the amendments which I tabled to the report, but which were lost in Committee. Like the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), I warn against the guillotine or timetabling.
On occasions, we all take advantage of our next engagement. If we are out in our constituency, and people buttonhole us with awkward questions, it is always nice to be able to say that we would love to answer them, but are sorry we have got to be somewhere else within the next minute or so, so that we can duck away—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is shameful, but I bet that we have all done it at least once, if not more often. The advantage to Ministers of guillotines or timetabling is that they can fill out the time.
Let us consider the performance of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she came to the Dispatch Box for 15 minutes. Sometimes people would say that she had gone on a bit answering this or that question, but it spun out the time and cut down the number of awkward questions that she had to answer. Guillotines and timetables let Ministers off the hook.
I do not support the idea of 10-minute speeches. Tonight's debate was a good example of self-discipline. I may have been called right at the end, with only a few seconds to go, but I prefer that to people being restricted to 10 minutes. They do not give way or take interventions, which spoils the debating atmosphere. If we are not going to give way, we might as well, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, hand in our speeches at the Table Office and not bother coming to the debate. The whole point of this place is that it is a debating Chamber.
The House is always at its worst when there is consensus between Front Bench spokesmen. It is important to ensure that the minority view is well represented. To try to squeeze it into 10 minutes when two Front-Bench spokesmen have had an hour in which to make their case is unsatisfactory. I warn the House: beware of the 10-minute rule and make sure that plenty of discretion is allowed.
Our effectiveness in this place has to do partly with time spent in the Chamber and partly with resources. I understand that that Top Salaries Review Body has been looking at Members' secretarial allowances and other resources, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us some news about what has happened to that review. We need some reform of our procedures, but we also need the resources to do our job more effectively.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: When the Select Committee was set up last July, I would not have given it much chance of having its report debated before the general election, not because I doubted the skills of the Members serving on it, but because I thought that the election would be much earlier. If by any chance the Prime Minister ducks out of 9 April, I hope that we shall have another debate on these matters so that we can make some decisions before the change of Government when we take over later this year. It would be nice to sort out some of the problems before that happens.
I welcome many of the Select Committee's recommendations, but I have strong reservations about others, not

least because, as I said when we set up the Committee, the report puts the cart before the horse, as several of my hon. Friends said. I can think of no other institution in the world which would discuss how long it ought to work before discussing what it was trying to do and how effectively it was doing it. Those are the prior questions that should be dealt with. It is not so much a matter of whether the horse should be better fed or the cart wheels oiled as of whether the horse and cart are the best means of getting from A to B.
We perform many of the functions that we are supposed to carry out in this House badly. Although that is not a popular thing to say, it echoes the description of this place as a museum by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). For instance, do we scrutinise the Executive effectively? The answer is no. Do we scrutinise legislation effectively? Emphatically, no. How good are we are at redressing the grievances of constituents? There is even a fairly large question mark over that.

Mr. Cryer: That is because there is not enough time.

Mr. Grocott: I shall come to that.
How effective are we as a debating Chamber, as a forum for debate? I regret to say that we are pretty bad at that, too. This may not be a popular opinion, but "Question Time" on the BBC is often a more effective debate.

Mr. Tony Banks: One has to get on it first—it is even more difficult than catching Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Grocott: Some are luckier than others.
We should, as I say, ask ourselves how effectively we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. For example, many of the assumptions behind the report and behind the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seem to rest on the idea that a Bill given two days for Second Reading, 100 hours for Committee and four days for Report and Third Reading will be twice as good as a Bill given one day for Second Reading, 50 hours for Committee and two days for Report and Third Reading. That may be true, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is the case.
Even with endless scrutiny, the House produces appalling legislation. I am sorry to bring in a sour and partisan note, but in that context I refer to the poll tax legislation. Conservative Members now understand as well as we do that that was appalling legislation, which brought great discredit to the Conservative party. I am pleased about that, but regrettably it brought a fair amount of discredit to this place because people say, "What a ludicrous Bill—how on earth was it passed?"

Mr. Cryer: It was passed because the Government have a big majority.

Mr. Grocott: Yes, the Government have a big majority, but we must seek better ways to scrutinise legislation, so that the worst faults are ironed out. Debating Bills for longer and longer is not the answer.
That deals with the issue of how effectively we perform our functions. The other question, which has been answered in many ways by the Select Committee, is how Members' time should be split between time spent in the House and time spent on constituency work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke accurately about the enormous growth in the Executive's power. Do


we deal with that simply by extending the sitting hours or should there be a better and more effective division of our time?
In that respect, the demands on Members have changed dramatically. I do not regret that, because I consider that time spent addressing meetings such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is just as effective as, and more important than, time spent in the House late at night scrutinising legislation which ends up with no change whatever in its content. We must ask basic questions about what we are doing here and about the balance between time in this place and time spent outside.
I strongly support some of the Committee's recommendations, including the recommendation for more notice of parliamentary business. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton said that two weeks' notice is far too short, but it is a step in the right direction. The fact that we receive only a week's notice is in many ways an indication of the contempt that the House seems to have for the needs and rights of constituents. There is a feeling that the business of the House, however obscure, must take precedence over the demands of people outside.
I welcome greater notice of recesses and endorse the attention paid to Scottish Members and to Members from the north and the midlands. They make tremendous sacrifices to be here. The argument about school holidays applies to many areas, but especially to Scotland, and we should respect that. The suggestion that legislation should be timetabled is also important, but I accept the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is a member of the Committee, that that risks giving tremendous power to the Government. After 9 April, I shall be much more sympathetic about giving tremendous power to the Government. However, I accept that there must be some balance in timetable motions, and the way to obtain that is to ensure that legislation is scrutinised by calling witnesses and following Select Committee-type procedures.
I disagree in many respects with the Select Committee's recommendations about the parliamentary day. We have heard again the arguments against late and morning sittings. This is probably the only job in the world—certainly the only job in Britain—where meeting after 10 o'clock is described as a late sitting. In any group of members that I represented as a trade unionist, 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock would be described as a late shift, as would 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This job is a lot easier than working down the pit.

Mr. Grocott: No one disputes that—of course it is easier. That is well established and understood, but as my hon. Friend knows, there are arguments for improving working conditions wherever work takes place.
Conservative Members have argued against morning sittings, using the excuse that Ministers would not have time to come to the House. Against that, I have a game, set and match argument. Fifteen Cabinet Ministers managed to come along on a Friday three weeks ago to ensure that the unspeakable could chase after the uneatable. If they can turn up on a Friday in such vast numbers, I am sure

that Ministers would be able to come along on any other morning when that was required, either to answer questions or to deal with debates. I see no good grounds for not having morning sittings, and I hope that we shall move towards that when the earlier recommendations have been implemented.
I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. In many ways, this place is a museum. It is time that we recognised that the world outside has changed and that we should be better able to reflect its needs. I welcome the report as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough and I ask for further improvements.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I warmly congratulate, yet again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and all the members of his Committee on the speed and thoroughness of their work. When I invited the House on 9 July to set up the Select Committee, I made it clear that I had received many representations from all parts of the House about the need for parliamentary reform, but that it was also clear that there was little agreement as to what reforms were necessary. That dichotomy has been reflected in the debate and draws attention to the excellent way in which my right hon. Friend's Committee has performed. It is to be congratulated on achieving a unanimous report in what is, by common consent, a most complex matter. Another complex job is arranging the business of the House. Anyone who has tried to do it will know that it is not as simple as it sounds to arrange and announce business weeks ahead, because many demands are made at the last minute.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) that this is a modest report. He did less than justice to himself and to his fellow Committee members. The report has covered a wide range of subjects. It is notable for being practical, as I would expect from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, a former Chief Whip. Often, we make advances by practical steps that can be achieved and realised in performance.
We have had a good debate. I am delighted that hon. Members exercised self-restraint and enabled everyone who wished to do so to speak. It has been noticeable that there has not been agreement on several issues, and that draws attention to the difficulties that the House will face in reaching decisions on the report and recommendations.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested that the report made things easier for the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) questioned some aspects of the report from a similar point of view. I do not see it that way. The Committee was originally set up because of the pressure put on me from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who wanted me to make parliamentary reforms in the interests of Parliament and of Members of Parliament. I should like to disabuse everyone of the notions that the Committee was set up to make the life of the Government easier and that it will necessarily do that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale spoke about the balance between the


Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers. Paragraph 7 outlines the principles that the Committee had in mind in looking at that balance. They include:

"(i) the Government of the day must get its business, and within that principle must ultimately control the time of the House;
(ii) the Opposition must have enough opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government and to approve or oppose its legislation as it thinks fit; and
(iii) backbench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern to them and to their constituents."

That sets out the aims that the reforms are trying to achieve. The Committee, in approaching its work and in the recommendations that it has made, has kept that balance in mind.
The other important part of the balance is the amount of time given in the House to each of those different interests. In my paper to the Committee, I analysed how that time had been divided in recent sessions. I do not make this point to criticise, because it is right that we should do so, but it is a fact that we give more time to Back Benchers than practically any other legislature in the world. That was made clear to me when I visited Australia and New Zealand recently.
When considering the hours and sittings of the House it is important that we endeavour to keep the balance between the Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers. That was very much a theme which I took up in my remarks, and I think that it is reflected in the report.
It is clear from the comments of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members this evening—this is very much a theme of the report, and it appears at the beginning of it —that we must take into account constituency duties, a work load that has increased. I think that we would all say amen to that. That has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and others. I very much disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that by restricting some of our sitting hours to enable Members to attend to their constituency duties we are introducing a three-and-ahalf day week, or whatever. I believe strongly that it is right to say that constituency duties have increased and that we are all spending more time on them. The report reflects my belief.
It has been kindly said that the report follows my advice closely. It clearly follows the endeavour to keep the balance between the Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers. I am grateful that some of the personal points of view that I expressed have been taken up in the report. It is right, however—I defend the independence of the Select Committee—that it has rejected some of my views, and certainly I have reservations about some of the recommendations. Those reservations can be dealt with later when we come to consider in detail what we shall do about the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) talked about the impact of the report and the need to consider the issues raised from the point of view of having more women Members. I am on record as having said on many occasions that I want to see many more women Members, and I think that my hon. Friend made many sensible comments in that respect, as did the hon. Member for Durham, North-West.
The fact remains that a Member's job will always be a heavy one. As the hon. Member for Durham, North-West said, it is not a normal life. Although we may make it easier for some women to participate in parliamentary activities through some reforms, that is only a part of the process.
One of the most interesting features of the debate—certainly until the later stages—was the degree of support for timetabling Bills in Committee. There is a distinction between timetabling and guillotining. A personal view that I expressed to the Select Committee is that timetabling enables the House to do a more effective job in its scrutiny of Bills. We all know that in the past the House and Committees have not done an effective job in considering a number of Bills. We have all been involved in that. Far too much time has been spent on the earlier parts of Bills, for whatever reason. One of the things that emerged most clearly during the debate was support for timetabling. I suspect that that reflects a change from the outcome of previous discussions on the issue.
An important matter that the Select Committee reflected strongly in its recommendations, and which I reiterate, is emphasised in paragraph 8. The passage reads:
The House, frontbenchers and backbenchers, must be united in its determination to use these procedural reforms to secure both reasonable hours and effective scrutiny. Otherwise our proposals for the more effective conduct of business of the House will mean little or nothing.
I am convinced that that is right. As I said in evidence to the Committee, whatever may eventually be agreed on arrangements for sittings of the House, their success will depend on the co-operation and self-discipline of Members. Whether Members will regularly see the House adjourn in the evening will rest to a large degree with Members. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) when he said that a small number of Members can frustrate the workings of the House. That is a view that we must have in mind when we approach the reforms.
I made it clear on 20 February that we shall go into the details later—I am not going into detailed recommendations tonight. I made it clear also on 20 February that I was keen that the House should have an early opportunity to express its view on the report as soon as possible. I believe that the House has welcomed the chance to hold this debate before we decide how to move forward on the specific recommendations. I felt that it was important that the House should have an early opportunity to express views, and this opportunity has been valuable.
The fact that I set up the Committee shows that we recognise the need for parliamentary reforms and that we have accepted in principle a willingness to undertake appropriate reforms. I can cite examples in relation to European Select Committees, the Transport and Works Bill and many others in which, in this Session alone, we have carried through a number of reforms. There is, however, no commitment—that was clear tonight—to any of the recommendations in the report. There will need to be further detailed consideration of those recommendations. Differing views have been expressed. It will be a fairly complex process to reach agreement on all the reforms. The views of the new House, before we decide how to take the issues forward, will also have to be taken into account, but tonight's debate has been a valuable first step.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Church of England Measures.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on this matter?

Mr. Cryer: It is not on this matter, it is on another matter connected to the Palace of Westminister. The Government have been defeated on the Education (Schools) Bill, and that raises important issues. I wonder whether you have had an application from the Department of Education and Science to make a statement to the House about the Government's defeat in the House of Lords on what they regard an important privatisation measure. If Government support is crumbling on the wing down the corridor—the geriatric wing of the Palace of Westminster—and if it is crumbling everywhere, we should know about it.

Mr. Speaker: That has some relevance to the previous debate. I know nothing about what has gone on in another place.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order for me. If the Government have been defeated in the other place, presumably we shall debate that when we consider Lords amendments.

Mr. Bennett: As the Leader of the House is present, I wonder whether he has asked you whether he can make a statement about any change of business, because we are under considerable pressure with various guillotines and other business that must proceed this week. It would be very helpful if the Leader of the House could tell us whether it will be necessary, in view of that defeat in the House of Lords, for there to be any change of business this week.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House was present throughout the previous debate, as I was, and will be as much in the dark as I am about what went on in another place.

Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As its short title suggests, the Measure contains provisions on a wide range of matters, most of which are neither controversial nor exciting but will be extremely useful in their own ways. I do not want to detain the House by attempting to deal with all of them, but perhaps I may mention one or two. Schedule 1, for example, deals with parochial registers and records, some of which are very ancient. Quite apart from their importance to the Church, the documents are of great interest to historians and

genealogists, so it is important that they should be properly preserved and cared for. The amendment in schedule I will help to ensure that.
On a completely different subject, clauses 2 and 3 will help to ensure that the rector or vicar of a parish will normally be responsible, if requested, for the funerals of his own parishioners, even if their funerals are to be held in a cemetery or a crematorium which lies outside his own parish boundaries. They will also help ecclesiastical law to deal more adequately with the ever more widespread practice of cremation.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the blessed and holy Member for giving way. This is a genuine inquiry, which is not my usual form of inquiry. Is it possible for me to be buried at the end of my garden if I so choose? Does the ground have to be consecrated? If I were to be cremated—[Interruption.] I am not anticipating anything unfortunate happening on 9 April. My parrot is buried at the end of the garden, so why cannot I be?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman can be buried at sea if he wants. There is a good deal of flexibility as to where the hon. Gentleman may prescribe that his remains should be disposed of—although long may that day be delayed. The limited purpose of the clause is to ensure that a vicar who wants to bury a parishioner with whom he had a particular association in another parish, away from his own, cannot be prevented from so doing by some obstreperous incumbent forbidding him to cross the constituency boundary, so to speak.

Dame Jill Knight: I remind my right hon. Friend that a Member of another place was convinced that, when he died, his remains should be fed to dogs.

Mr. David Harris: He must have been a Liberal.

Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend is right. We will pass over any suggestion that the noble Lord's wishes reflected his mental condition. Does the measure incorporate the regulation that forbade that Member of another place to be eaten by dogs after his demise?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has managed, by a subtle side wind, to introduce the topic of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill into this debate. I hastily ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in being invited to follow that line. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the narrow ambit of the measure relating to burials has nothing to do with the technicalities of the way in which the poor deceased's body may be disposed of, but entirely concerns the right of a parish priest to secure the funeral of someone who was a member of his flock in a cemetery or crematorium that lies in another parson's constituency, so to speak—and to prevent that parson from objecting to an outsider working on his territory.
I will attempt to take the House away from those rather sombre aspects of the Bill. The main intention behind clauses 1 and 11 is to save unnecesary paperwork, and thus unwelcome expense, when a rector or vicar resigns, or when a parish is temporarily without a rector or vicar for some other reason.
Turning to Church of England activities on a broader front, clause 6 will help it to forge closer links with


Churches abroad. That reflects current efforts to improve relations with other Christian Churches in Europe, but also in this country.
Right hon. and hon. Members who had an opportunity to examine the Bill will know that schedule 4 lists a number of provisions in statutes and measures dating back to at least 1803 that are being repealed because they are no longer needed. I am advised that, at present, the standard volume of ecclesiastical law, statutes, and measures occupies about 1,300 pages—and that only goes up to mid-1985, and does not include a good deal of recent legislation. The pruning effected by schedule 4 represents a welcome simplification of the law.
Three clauses relating to the appointment of deacons to various posts gave rise to some concern among some members of the General Synod and of the House's own ecclesiastical committee. The main background to those provisions is to be found in section 10 of the Act of Uniformity 1662, which provides that holders of certain offices in the Church must have been ordained as priests.
Clause 14 provides that, in spite of anything in section 10 of the 1662 Act, deacons may be appointed as rural deans. The clause says that it is for the avoidance of doubt, and that is exactly its purpose. Some ecclesiastical lawyers take the view that it is already lawful to appoint deacons to such posts, and that section 10 of the 1662 Act contains nothing to prevent it, as some experienced deacons have already been appointed as rural deans on that basis. On the other hand, some ecclesiastical lawyers take a different view, and it therefore seemed desirable to clarify the legal position.
The office of rural dean is a responsible one, but his role is essentially pastoral. It does not involve the supervision of priests in the rural deanery, or the carrying out of essentially priestly functions. As a matter of law, the rural dean's main task is to report various matters to the bishop, such as illness or distress among the clergy, or instances in which a church is in a poor or dangerous state of repair. I see no reason why that task should not be carried out by experienced deacons.
Clause 15 makes it possible to appoint a deacon who has been ordained for at least six years as residentiary canon of a cathedral. That represents a change in the law. The position of residentiary canon is a senior one, but mature and experienced deacons are already able to hold—and, indeed, do hold—senior posts in the dioceses: for example, as directors of ordinands, directors of education and directors of social responsibility.
Posts of that kind, however, are often linked to cathedral canonries, partly for financial reasons and partly because it is desirable for senior people in a diocese to have a spiritual home in the life of the mother church of that diocese. At present, deacons are excluded from the posts in question, which means that the best available person cannot necessarily be appointed. Clause 15 would open the way to the appointment of deacons both to residentiary canonries and to diocesan posts linked with them. It would also ensure that, when it is thought desirable to appoint a deacon but the cathedral's constitution and statutes mirror the existing law and require a residentiary canon to be a priest, the cathedral will not need to go through the lengthy process of having its constitution and statutes amended.
Nevertheless, the clause makes it clear that deacons who are residentiary canons will not be entitled or required to perform exclusively priestly functions, such as

celebrating holy communion or giving absolution. For that reason, there can be no question of all the residentiary cannons of a particular cathedral being deacons, as there would then be no one to fulfil the canons' sacramental duties.

Mr. Harris: Does not that highlight a major inconsistency? Obviously, the reason for the measure is the current existence of a number of female deacons. Is my right hon. Friend saying that a woman deacon can become a canon of a cathedral—can, indeed, become a director of ordinands—and still not be able to administer holy communion? Is that not absolute nonsense?

Mr. Alison: Whether it remains absolute nonsense is a question for the future. It is conceivable that the General Synod of the Church of England will decide to remove that disability: in future, a woman deacon who has spent six years as a diaconate may be able to become not merely a canon, but a fully officiating canon. That remains to be seen, however. It does not make it undesirable for a women who may already be the director of education in a diocese, or hold a similar senior post, to be given a place as a canon, provided that she has had at least six years' experience—even if she is not fully fledged and able to carry out the full priestly function. That holds out to women a further prospect of significant honour and advancement which the General Synod of the Church of England thought—and I am sure it was right—was entirely laudable and desirable.
Clause 16 deals with non-residentiary canons. The office of a non-residentiary canon is mainly honorary and is normally intended to give some recognition to clergy who have played a significant part in the life of the Church and the diocese. Deacons who have had an effective ministry for some time may well be considered suitable persons to appoint. Most ecclesiastical lawyers consider that the 1662 Act does not prevent a deacon from holding that office. Several deacons have been appointed as non-residentiary canons in various cathedrals.
The object of clause 16 is to set at rest the few doubts expressed about the legal position and to ensure, as in the case of residentiary canons, that, if a cathedral's constitution and statutes stipulate that the non-residentiary canons must be priests, the cathedral will not need to go through the process of having them altered. The clause makes it clear that non-residentiary canons who are deacons are not entitled or to be required to perform exclusively priestly functions.
Although the position may change, it is well known that most male deacons regard their office as a stepping stone to the priesthood. As a result, the real relevance of clauses 14, 15 and 16 is to women deacons. Some members of our Ecclesiastical Committee, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is one, were concerned that the clauses were an attempt to edge towards the ordination of women to the priesthood by the back door. I assure the House that that is not the case.
The offices covered by the three clauses do not, as I have explained, involve carrying out exclusively priestly functions. The supporters of the clauses in the Synod included some people who were opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood but who thought it important to allow mature and experienced women clergy to progress to posts of responsibility in the Church which they could


properly hold as deacons, rather than leaving them to feel that the only way forward for them in their ministry was to be ordained as priests.
At first sight, it may seem surprising that a deacon would be able to hold those responsible posts, but could not be an ordinary vicar or rector. The office of rector or vicar of a parish is one of the most honourable and important offices in the Church, because it involves the cure of the souls of the parishioners and is the cornerstone of the parochial system which is such an essential feature of the Church of England.
The Measure was debated at length and in detail by the Synod, and it was passed by substantial majorities in all three of the Synod's houses. It contains many provisions which will undoubtedly be for the benefit of the Church of England and for those whom the Church serves. It was passed by our Ecclesiastical Committee with the recommendation that it was expedient.

Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the Measure, especially clauses 14, 15 and 16. As hon. Members have just heard, we are beginning to build a career structure in the Church for women priests. It is not a substitute for the main Measure, which I hope will come to the House at some stage, to allow women to be priests, but it is a step in that direction. It will stand whether that Measure is passed by Synod and comes to this place or not. If Synod sends us a Measure to allow women to be ordained as priests, it will gain a huge majority in the House.
I make my comment with one proviso. People may have heard a debate in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I took part last week. My right hon. Friend said that he had never voted against a Church Measure in this place. He also said that he was wholly in favour of women priests. However, he said that if the Measure came here linked to and indivisible from the compensation Measure, he would be sorely pressed not to vote for that Measure.
The debate allows us to send friendly signals to Synod. The House of Bishops has a chance of splitting that Measure, should it wish to send it to us, so that we consider the women priests Measure and the compensation Measure separately. I hope that it will consider the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield carefully. Although I believe that there would be a thumping majority in the House of Commons in favour of women priests, the House would not look so favourably on a measure to pay people up to £55,000 if they wished to exercise their conscience and leave. The House believes that people should exercise their conscience and leave without being paid such handsome sums for doing so.
The only other point that I wish to make is about the title of this Measure. It is an important Measure. It is not the main Measure about women priests, but clauses 14, 15 and 16 are important. Yet it is another example of Synod trying either our intelligence or our patience. It seems discourteous, to say the least, to dress up the Measure as a miscellaneous Measure. It is about developing a career structure for women deacons and it should have come over as such. Synod should have been proud to send that Measure to the House.
Several diligent Members of Parliament look carefully at what Synod proposes. If Synod thought that the Measure would go past without comment or opposition from those who oppose giving women a greater say in the church, that is a reflection either of its intelligence or of its folly.
For the reasons that I have given, I hope that this miscellaneous Measure will begin to provide a proper career structure for the valuable service that women deacons already give in the Church. For that reason alone, I hope that the House will pass the Measure. But I hope that Synod will take on board the points about compensation and about the silly behaviour of dressing up significant Measures with innocuous titles.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on the last point. It is one reason why some of us who serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee were a little angry about the Measure. It is not what it appears on the outside. The hon. Gentleman and I are in accord on that point. The Measure is designed to do one main thing. It is designed to advance the cause of women in the Church.
Some of us who serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee were disturbed that the measure seemed to anticipate a further decision of Synod and, indeed, of the House. It would be fair to say that those who were disturbed included some who support the ordination of women and some who, like me, have grave reservations about that move. We are talking about posts of real seniority in the Church of England. There is no point in anyone denying that.
A rural dean is a position of seniority within our parochial system. It is unthinkable that a male deacon would ever be a rural dean. A rural dean is almost always an experienced parish priest who has been an incumbent for many years and is therefore reckoned to be well qualified to help to administer a group of parishes and to be in effect the presiding priest over a group of his colleagues. That is a position of seniority and it should not be dressed up otherwise. It should be occupied by a senior priest. I use the word carefully. That is not to say that if women become priests they should not become rural deans. Indeed, if they become priests it would be entirely proper that the position of rural dean and other positions of seniority should be open to them.
The same applies, one might say to an even greater extent, in the case of canons of cathedrals. It is a high honour to be a canon of a cathedral in the Church of England. Many of the most distinguished churchmen in our history have never held a more senior position—people such as Sydney Smith—and many have never aspired to any higher position. It would be unthinkable for a male deacon to become a canon of a cathedral.
I spell those matters out carefully, and I hope without too much emotion, because it is important that, while the House has a responsibility for these matters, we should face them fairly and squarely.
Some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee felt that the Measure was anticipating future decisions of Synod and of the House. First, we were disturbed that the Measure should have come to us with this seemingly innocuous title. We were then doubly disturbed to find that this measure was being proposed many months in


advance of the Synod making a final decision on women priests, and many months—perhaps a couple of years—in advance of the House being asked to endorse such a decision. I do not like it, and that is why, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and some other members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I voted against it on that occasion, and our votes were recorded.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead has rightly said, now is not the time to debate in detail the ordination of women. I doubt not that there will come a time when the House will be asked to debate it. I suspect that, when this measure is debated in the General Synod in the late autumn of this year, there will probably be the requisite majority. However, this issue must be thought about and prayed about carefully. It is an issue which will divide people within the Church of England, and there are people whom I deeply respect on both sides of the argument.
Some people are utterly convinced that there is no bar to a woman exercising the priestly function. There are others who take a contrary view and who properly recognise that the words "priest" and "minister" are not synonymous. There are others who believe that it would be divisive to proceed with that within the Church of England at this time.
Among those who take that view, a considerable number believe that the cost of conscience has to be counted. It was a good thing that the hon. Member for Birkenhead introduced that issue into his speech. Above all, he is an honest and honourable man who does not seek to hide what he believes or what he wishes to achieve, and I honour and respect him for that.
In the months which lie between this decision and the decision that will be taken by Synod in November—and the decision that we may well be called on to take thereafter—I ask the hon. Gentleman to think carefully about what he has said, and about those men who will feel that they can no longer be at home within the Church of England, although many of them have given decades of their lives to it as vicars and rectors—men who have never been paid any great sum of money because we do not pay our priests very much in the Church of England, and men who will feel that they cannot, in all conscience, continue to exercise their vocation. Are they and their families to be punished for a decision which was never even in prospect when they were ordained?
We have to face that issue and deal with it with clarity and humility. Now is not the time to expand on that subject, although it was proper for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to introduce it and it is equally proper that I should respond, but I ask him and every other hon. Member in this Chamber to think carefully about that before we come finally to debate it.
I shall not seek to divide the House this evening because there is no point in so doing. It is clear to me that the majority of Members present this evening would feel that the measure is indeed expedient, although I do not think that it is, for the reasons that I have sought to explain.
I come back to where I began and where the hon. Gentleman finished his speech. It is important that the General Synod of the Church of England and those who lead it and seek to speak for it should behave wholly honestly in every way. That means saying what they are about and not dressing up significant Measures in spurious garments. That way lies further division and further justifiable anger as a result of provocation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who introduced the Measure with his customary elegance and moderation, will take that message back to his fellow commissioners and others in the hierarchy of the Church of England.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I rise to speak in favour of the motion and the proposals in the Measure. Although I have been present at the commit tee meetings on almost all occasions, unfortunately I was unable to attend this time, but 1 would have taken the same view. It was a useful exercise in exploring the issues and hearing the evidence which, as the committee often finds, was helpful.
To follow on the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), the Measure seems to tiptoe round the three controversial clauses, particularly the difficult issue of the ordination of women priests. I support the ordination of woman priests. I was interested to hear the answer of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to me the other day on the personnel implications. It advanced the important argument that the total number of people coming forward for ordination had increased, but that the number of men coming forward had decreased. It does not take the genius of a Newton to work out that the advantage to the Church of having women ordained would be considerable: it would give a plus rather than a minus final figure.
I have always taken the view that there are enormous numbers of people out there who wish to give service as ordained members of the ministry. I remember going to the first service of the ordination of women as deacons at Southwark cathedral and seeing a great tide of women coming through the gates to that new form of ministry. I was enormously impressed by that. I realised how we hold back, to our detriment, those who feel that that sort of ministry is their vocation. When the Measure comes before us, as we expect that it will within a year, it not only will have my support, but will enjoy widespread support on both sides of each House.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the issue of principle behind whether women should be ordained priests should be taken separately. Now is not the right time to get into the detailed debates that follow from that, but as this is probably the last chance that the House will have to discuss the whole issue of the preferment of women in the Church, it is important to see how the Measure relates to that wider issue.
The debate is topical because of the express concern of members of the Church about what will happen if the Synod votes for the ordination of women—the majority of dioceses have already said that they wish to do that. I understand the point of conscience, but there is a greater cause to which those ordained into the Church must subscribe. They must ensure that the maximum number who feel that they have a vocation are able to practise it in the cause of the gospel. Whatever the personal conviction, there are perfectly adequate ways within the same Church whereby people can continue their ministry without seeking to divide the Church, separate from it or cause difficulties to its ministry.
The Church has suffered from schism during two millennia and its message has been obscured by it. The Church of England will not do the country a service if large


numbers, or even small but significant numbers, of its ordained priests decide that they must go somewhere else to carry out their ministry as a result of a decision by the Synod. The Church of England may have reason to arouse criticism because of its establishment nature, but its great merit is that it is the Church of the whole nation. I hope that everyone who is ordained to serve in it will see the merit in retaining that unity after any decision, taken after due and prayful consideration, by the Synod of the Church.
Those who are considering how they will react should the Church vote for the ordination of women should remember that many of us want them to stay in the Church and not to divide it. We believe that their concerns can be accommodated by a careful, conscientious, considered and deliberate process between now and any decision by the Church. Some have asked that any such decision should be delayed for 10 years, but if that is not possible, I hope that they will not believe that they have an overriding duty other than to stay in the Church to which they have given so much of their lives.
It is anomalous that we should be considering the supplemental issue before the main one. However, in relation of rural deans, I appreciate that that is necessary for the clarification of the law, rather than the promulgation of new law. It is clear from the evidence that, at the time of the act of uniformity, the job of rural deans did not exist. They were a later creation. However, the Measure on rural deans has been introduced to avoid doubt.
I understand the view expressed by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, and I accept that it is logical to think that the job of rural dean is given to someone of seniority and experience in that local part of the Church. The evidence, however, suggests that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in one respect. Rural dean is not a post of seniority, but one of co-ordination. The selection of a rural dean works on a rota of people in the deanery. Some of those selected are relatively new priests in the deanery and are relatively young. The post does not necessarily go to the most senior priests. It is a functional, administrative job which entails passing on information to the area bishop. It is not a supervisory or hierarchical job. There is a difference.
It is also an anomaly in 1992 to describe the person appointed to the post in a deanery such as mine as a rural dean. I know that the parishes of Bermondsey were in the country once, in the county of Surrey, and were a long way from the City of London and the city of Westminster. That is not so any more. The Church should look like it is up with the times. We could correct the title in the next miscellaneous Measure to allow people to be called urban or area deans in those areas that are no longer rural.
Hon. Members will have noticed that there are female non-residential canons—they are enumerated in the Measure. Indeed, we have one in Southwark diocese. The Measure seeks to add the opportunity for women to be residential canons, too. Although that is a different argument, it has merit. As there are many women in different forms of the ministry in the Church, it seems entirely appropriate that women—irrespective of their priestly or diaconal status—should be able to participate in the internal grouping responsible for the running,

management and ministry of the cathedral church. Therefore, allowing women—who cannot yet by law be priests but who can be deacons—to attain that office is an advantage both to the cathedral church and to the diocese as a whole. Women in the diocese would then have a role model representing them in an extremely important part of the diocese.
There are reasons that stand on their own and have merit to justify the two provisions. Those who proposed them thought so, and I believe their honesty and integrity. Bigger issues lie further down the track and we shall debate those with more heat and potentially more numbers in due course but, in the meantime, I expect that the House will wish to support the Measure. I hope that it does so and that it will allow the many small administrative changes and the two more noticeable ones to be made to the advantage of the whole of the Church of England.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: A virtue of the speeches by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is that they seem to be new each time. Having something to say on every subject would like to be shared by many hon. Members who do not get a chance to speak quite so often—

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am a spokesman for my party.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman says that he is a spokesman for his party on that subject. I concede that.
The last tract that I read was given 18 years ago by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, on "The Christian Concept of Sacrifice". I do not address that to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) because the persuasive case that he has made for this Measure has convinced everyone and gained the tacit acquiescence of those who have argued against or been doubtful about the provisions at previous stages. But Michael Ramsay said:
if we're engaged in a ministry of paraphrasing we do need to conserve at the heart of it the thing which is being paraphrased; and unless we do, we may not be paraphrasing, but we may be talking a lot of rather superficial stuff which means a great deal less than what the real thing meant and means. For that reason my hope is that however much modern paraphrase language we come to use in our liturgies, hymns, preaching, and elsewhere, we will always retain at the heart of it the words that Jesus himself used on the night in which he was betrayed, the words, 'This cup is the New Covenant in My blood' or 'This is My blood of the Covenant, shed for you and for many', because the reality contained in those words really transcends all the attempts at paraphrasing as long as this world may last.
Michael Ramsey started that address to the Anselm Society of Canterbury by saying that one of his great teachers, Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, said many years ago that the concept of sacrifice had become spiritualised and etherealised and that we had forgotten what a horrible thing it really meant. Hoskyns said it
it would be a good thing if once a year a bull could be sacrificed in the college court, preferably on a hot summer's afternoon, just to bring home to all our senses what a horrible thing was this sacrifice that lies behind so much of the imagery of Christianity.
Those words may go a little beyond the Measure, but they begin to illustrate that some of the cosy little talks among those who know how to spell ecclesiology—I confess that I am not among them—get away from the service to which most of us are called. One of the reasons why I have not been a very successful politician is because


I do not know how to get on bodies such as the Ecclesiastical Committee. If I am re-elected at the general election, could those who know how to get on that Committee tell me, because I should like to be on it, especially when Measure on the ordination of women comes up? [HON. MEMBERS: "Write—or pray—to the Speaker."] I am told that I should write to Mr. Speaker.
It seems that, although the Measure's innocuous title helps it to contain provisions to allow women and others—men, although they are not likely to remain deacons for six years or more—to do things that they are not forbidden to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, I think that we all recognise that we are on the way to the General Synod considering the major point.
I hope that we shall hear less in the popular media that reflects the voice of the organisation "The Church in Danger". As far as I can see, the organisation was thought up by those associated with The Spectator weekly magazine. A significant, although not always declared, proportion of its members are retired from active stipendiary ministry—they are ministers on pensions.

Mr. Frank Field: That is ageism.

Mr. Bottomley: It is not ageism—I am just trying to describe whose who are not involved in compensation.
I also hope that when we consider the Measure on the ordination of women, which I hope will come through Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee to the Floor of the House, we shall not look on the issue of compensation in that way. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South would accurately describe such matters as resettlement issues. The resettlement of people who feel that they have to abandon their way of earning their living is a separate matter. But perhaps such arguments can be addressed following the bishops' advice to the Synod.
I used to believe that it was worth waiting a bit for the ordination of women. On one of my unsuccessful attempts to stand for election at the General Synod—there have been two so far—I said that I thought that the balance of sacrifice was now being carried by the women, not by those to whom the ordination of women would be a personal pain, difficult or unacceptable.
However, I now look at the people who still object to the ordination of women—I am not addressing a personal remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South—and see that some of them overlap with those who object to a modern liturgy. I see the modern liturgy as one that makes the Church of England liturgy virtually identical with Roman Catholic liturgy, and, on those grounds alone, something to be very much welcomed. I also see people objecting to the ordination of some people who could be ordained if they were in slightly different personal circumstances.
I hope that the Bishop of London will not take this as a personal attack on him, but when he uses language that I cannot even understand, let alone agree to, it seems that we should take a different approach. We should recognise that the General Synod was set up to try to help ease the burden of legislation on ecclesiastical matters in the House, but also realise that the House should not just rubber stamp what may come forward but should call for it.
We should say that the sacrifice which has been borne by women and the Church has gone on too long, and most of us are like the two thirds of the readers of the Church of England Newspaper who, about three years ago, were clearly strongly in favour of the ordination of women. Half of one third—about 16 per cent. of the readers—were strongly against it. The strength of feeling of the minority who are opposed should no longer be able to dominate the overwhelming majority, plus the others who would want or accept it when it comes.

Mr. Cormack: I counsel my hon. Friend to be a little careful in his attribution of motives to other people.
More importantly, he should not castigate an organisation like "The Church in Danger" as being a particular group of people. He should look at the Members in both Houses of Parliament who are on that group. He would see that they are people of all ages and both sexes, with genuine concerns which any member of the Church of England should take seriously.

Mr. Bottomley: I accept that. However, I saw the unpaid advertisements—the come-ons—in The Spectator magazine week after week. I was tempted to join to find out what was being circulated among the members of the "The Church in Danger" organisation.
When "The Church in Danger" writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury I should be grateful if it would deposit a copy of the letter in the House Library so that people like me can read it. I pay tribute to the archbishop for giving us the copy of his response, which struck me as fair and reasonable. It would also help if those reporting the words of "The Church in Danger" mentioned not just that one member of the Cabinent supports what it is doing but that none of the others has signed up. The reporting of this matter has not been terribly balanced—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As a younger member of "The Church in Danger," perhaps I could attack the accusation of ageism. My hon. Friend is well known in the House for his defence of minorities—in a secular sense. Is he saying that a minority in this case should be overruled or swept aside?
I should like to challenge my hon. Friend's reference to the Church Times—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Both hon. Members are straying a long way from the Measure. I very much hope that they will relate their remarks more closely to it.

Mr. Howarth: If I may continue, my hon. Friend should not judge the views of the Church of England—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bottomley: I was referring to the Church of England Newspaper, not the Church Times. On the other matter, I stand corrected.
I have spent some time serving on the Archbishop of Canterbury's urban priority commission, a follow-up to "Faith in the City". No great objections to the ordination of women were raised in that body. I spent six years as a trustee of Christian Aid and found no difficulties with the idea on that organisation. When I served as chairman of the Church of England Children's Society I did not find that the issue came up much.
In short, in much of the practical work of the Church, the ordination of women is not an issue, because people


are getting on with their work. If St. Hilda of Whitby could do what she did, why could she not be ordained? My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and I were in St. Faith's chapel earlier this evening; if St. Faith could be a saint and a woman, surely the ordination of women does not present difficulties.
I am grateful for your charity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support this Measure, and also the Measure that that is to come later; I hope that Anglicans and non-Anglicans alike will do all in their power to support and pass it when it comes.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I entered the Chamber solely to listen to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who have served on the Ecclesiastical Committee for longer than I, but I felt it right to say a word or two because I disagreed mildly with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and more strongly with certain Conservative Members.
While we should try to avoid schism—paganism is far too rife in this country—we should also recognise that, despite all pleadings for unity and cohesion in the Church, there may still be some honest men who cannot go along with the decision to ordain women. I agree that they should not leave the Church loaded with largesse, but it would be wicked to send them along a bitter road without scrip or sustenance. We do not want to over-encourage their departure, but it should not be accompanied by impoverishment—

Mr. Frank Field: We should try at all costs to prevent these people from departing—they should be promoted in the hierarchy, and parishes should have the right never to accept women if they do not want to; there are not enough to go around, anyway. But at the end of the day, if they do not want to stay, having been encouraged to do so, they should leave.

Mr. Tony Banks: Let them eat manna.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend demonstrates his usual generous spirit.
The fact remains that there must be some understanding of the challenges faced by the Church and those within it. My view of the matter is different from that of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. I attended the last meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee at which the matter was discussed, and I certainly understand the hon. Gentleman's view.
Because of the developments of history and the change in the nature of society, the ordination of women is right. As a result, it would have been inappropriate for the House not to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has recognised, that the debate is of relatively minor importance. However, signals will go out from the debate, and the House should send a signal that the future debate on the ordination of women should be preceded by the proper rectification of anomalies. The issue of canons and rural deans is an anomaly that may not have loomed large in the past, but in the context of the developing debate, it is important and it would not be wise to rule out women on the ground that they do not have the capacity to hold such positions.
I hope that grasp of the modernities of life displayed by the hon. Member for Southward and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not be such as to expunge the title of rural dean from his area of London or any other conurbation. One of the advantages of the developing debate, with all the anguish and anxiety that it will engender, is that the media may well return to the above-average presentation of dramas based on adaptations of Trollope. Such presentations are among the finest achievements of the past decade of British television, and I hope that they will be repeated or developed.
Such presentations hold out the prospect of rural deans having a greater meaning in Britain's conurbations. That could be one of the less significant spin-offs of a debate that will bring heated argument to the country and probably to the House. On this occasion, I hope that the House will approve a Measure that is both consistent and necessary.

Mr. Alison: I note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is looking forward to his Adjournment debate, so I shall not detain the House.
The hon. Member asked where he might be buried. That is a matter of some local importance, and the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear one or two facts that are relevant to his contingency when it arises. He need not be buried in consecrated ground. He could be buried at the bottom of his garden, if that is what he wants, but I suspect that that might be a hazardous enterprise, because it could give rise to a whispering campaign alleging that the local Conservative party or an activist had murdered and buried him. That could lead to the hon. Gentleman being disinterred and put in the local authority cemetery. If he were buried in unconsecrated ground and his family subsequently wished it to be consecrated, that could be done. The hon. Gentleman's future burial is entirely indeterminate, but I suspect properly safeguarded.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a helpful speech supporting the Measure, for which I am grateful. He criticised the General Synod in terms of the title that we are considering, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure. The hon. Gentleman is being a little harsh, although he is not normally a harsh man. The measure started as the Service Chaplains and Miscellaneous Provisions Measure. The Synod then decided to take out the service chaplains bit of it, so it became simply the miscellaneous provisions Measure.
Much further down the line, when it had completed almost all its stages, the Synod decided to put in the three provisions on canons, and overlooked restoring the title that the Measure had originally had, the Service Chaplains and Miscellaneous Provisions Measure. The Synod might have done so if it had thought about it, and I am sure that it would accept the rebuke that the hon. Gentleman made, but this was not done in an attempt to mislead us or to get something through on the nod.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a considered and moderately expressed speech of dissent and warning. His eloquent and well-rounded speech will be noted and considered in General Synod circles. It is a foreshadowing of things to come, and we need to take considerable notice of speeches from that quarter and of that calibre.
I am not sure whether I can reassure my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that already, some rural deans appointed from the diaconate are men of considerable experience, so this is not entirely unprecedented. We are enfranchising women in this sector not because it will be the shape of things to come, but very much because it is the shape of things as they are as the result of the 1985 measure, which presented the Church of England with such a large number of women deacons.
It is worth noting, by way of counter-balance, that the Roman Catholic Church is moving strongly in the direction of introducing a diaconate expressly for married men, so as to encourage men to go into a limited ministry. It is possible that there will be a feedback into the Church of England, with a growing body of men who wish to limit themselves to the diaconate, thereby offering a limited service, in a way that matches what is happening in the Roman Catholic Church.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for the tone in which he expressed his dissent, but for saying that he will not divide the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his helpful and analytical exposition of the merits of the measure. We note his point about the change of the designation of rural deans to Bermondsey, although, with greenness in his veins, he may one day secure that Bermondsey becomes rural—that will be the day!
I note carefully the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has given us his usual helpful support. I am grateful for the positive note that he struck.
Against that background, I hope that the House will allow this Measure to go through.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

PETITIONS

Hare Coursing

Mr. Tony Banks: I should like to present a petition signed by over 114,000 citizens, protesting at the barbaric so-called sport of hare coursing. Live hare coursing takes place between September and March every year, and it is staged purely for entertainment. People who take pleasure from watching a harmless live animal ripped to pieces by dogs have to be sick in the head. The hare is not a pest. It does not threaten farmers or other creatures. Hare coursing comes in the same barbaric category as dog fighting, badger baiting, cock fighting, and so on. I am pleased to tell the 114,000 signatories to the petition, organised by the League Against Cruel Sport, and the followers of this organised torture against hares, that when Labour wins the general election, we shall introduce legislation that will banish hare coursing from our country.

To lie upon the Table.

Vivisection

Mr. Tony Banks: Here we have two for the price of one. I present the second petition on behalf of over 15,000 citizens. It asks for the abolition of vivisection on scientific and moral grounds. Approximately 3·2 million animals were experimented on in British laboratories during 1990. This means 8,000 per day or 60,000 per week. The number of experiments that did not involve any anaesthetic at any stage rose from 63 per cent. in 1989 to 68 per cent. in 1990. In one statement, Ceiba Geigy estimated that 95 per cent. of drugs passed safe after animal tests were rejected after human clinical trials. Vivisection includes: suffocation, burning, scalding, drowning, mutilation, poisoning, surgery, irradiation, sleep-deprivation, sight deprivation, electro-shocking, freezing, injection of disease and genetic manipulation—and we think that we have it bad in this place. Cosmetic testing and many other procedures, such as the LG50 test, have been widely discredited. The world will be a better place when all vivisection is abolished, in terms of both human health and animal welfare.
I present the petition on behalf of the signatories.

To lie upon the table.

Law and Order

Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 8,535 signatories on the breakdown of law and order. The petition was collected by members of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Labour party and by others outside the party, notably Marie Price. My constituents rushed to sign it. Is that any wonder, when crime has doubled since 1979?
Violent crime has doubled, burglaries have doubled and robberies have trebled. People have signed the petition because they do not want to be frightened to open their doors, to go out at night or to use subways. They do not want to be worried that their houses or cars will be broken


into when they leave them. They want action to prevent crime. They want the Government to take the petition seriously.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to take urgent steps to halt the breakdown of law and order. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table

Stratford School

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Tony Banks: The problems of Stratford school in my constituency have received excessive national publicity. It is publicity that we do not welcome in the area, and the sorry mess could have been avoided in the first place if this malevolent and dogmatic Government had listened to the elected representatives of Newham—Members of Parliament and councillors.
I shall be brief because I want my Newham colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to contribute to the debate, and I have agreed that with the Minister.
Originally Newham council proposed the closure of Stratford school to conform with the Government's requirement to reduce surplus places in line with circular 3/87 from the Department of Education and Science. To enable the building of a new sixth form college and two new schools in docklands, Stratford had to close. The reorganisation plans were well supported in the borough by local industrialists, the London Docklands development corporation and others.
In an understandable attempt to avoid closure, the parents submitted a petition with enough signatures to trigger an opt-out ballot. The result of the first ballot was a majority of 10 against opt-out. As fewer than 50 per cent. of parents voted, a second ballot was required. The result of that ballot was an 18 vote majority for opt-out. Fifty-one per cent. were in favour of opt-out, but that represented only 33 per cent. of those eligible to vote. It was hardly an overwhelming turnout. However, an overwhelming majority of existing governors and staff were opposed to opt-out.
In October 1989, Newham's Members, together with councillors and officers, went to see the then Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern (Mrs. Rumbold). We said that it was nonsense to grant opt-out for a school facing closure as part of approved education reorganisation. We warned the Minister about the likely chaos and divisiveness that opt-out would cause in the area. We were given a most sympathetic hearing and we assumed that good sense would prevail. In that respect, we were proved utterly wrong.
In the summer of 1990, with the Tory party conference looming, we understand that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), started expressing dissatisfaction with the slow rate of opt-out. Junior Ministers at the Department of Education and Science were changed. Despite advice from civil servants against opt-out, the overwhelming opposition of Stratford governors and the absence of any real support in the local community, opt-out for Stratford school was approved by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in October 1990.
It was a political decision that was based on the needs of the Tory party and the dogma of the then Prime Minister. The Minister who is sitting behind the Dispatch Box, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), knows that the Tory party had nothing to lose in Newham, North-West. He did not care about the education of


Newham pupils or community relations in the area. He was interested only in delivering an opt-out in a solid Labour area to satisfy the half-mad bigot who was then leading the country.
One has to contrast the Stratford decision in Labour Newham with the decision over Walsingham school in Tory Wandsworth. Walsingham was also facing closure as part of a reorganisation. Both schools had similar pupil and electoral rolls. At Walsingham in Wandsworth, 96·1 per cent. of parents voted for an opt-out on a first ballot. In Newham, on the second ballot only 51 per cent. voted in favour of an opt-out. At Walsingham, no fewer than 64·8 per cent. of people on the electoral roll voted in favour. At Stratford, only 33·5 per cent. of those eligible to vote voted in favour. There was no question about support for an opt-out at Walsingham at any level at any stage among any of the people involved, but the Secretary of State turned down Walsingham's opt-out application. Could it have been on educational grounds or could it just be because Walsingham is in Tory Wandsworth and Stratford is in Labour Newham?
I should like the Minister to answer three specific questions. First, is it not a ff cd67act that his Department advised and warned him against the Stratford opt-out? Secondly, why was Stratford allowed to opt out and Walsingham refused permission to opt out? Thirdly, why has the Secretary of State refused to meet elected representatives in the House, the three Newham Members of Parliament, and councillors from the London borough of Newham? It is because the opt-out in our area has created enormous bitterness.
Pupils are returning home crying. Parents are telephoning my office to complain and then refusing to give their names or addresses because of fear of intimidation. The local police are genuinely worried about the possibilities of violence, and maintain a presence in the area. The school is regularly staked out by camera crews and journalists. To cap it all, various racist organisations are now sniffing around to see what trouble they can cause. It is an appalling mess, and the blame for creating the conditions rests entirely with the Government.
Schools in the public sector do not belong to a particular set of governors, parents or staff who happen to be there at any given moment. Those schools belong to the entire community that funds them. Stratford school must be handed back to the elected representatives of the local community, and that means Newham council. This opt-out has gone disastrously but predictably wrong. The real sufferers are the school pupils and their education, and that is intolerable.
At the very least, the Government should ask Her Majesty's inspectorate to go to Stratford to see what is going on behind those closed doors. The nation's press is crawling over the school. The last HMI inspection was a routine one on 4 December 1991. The Government are obviously embarrassed by events at Stratford. The shoddily drafted legislation which permits an opt-out has no built-in safety measures to deal with an opt-out which goes haywire, as it has done at Stratford.
I expect a Labour Secretary of State to place Stratford school back with Newham council. In my opinion—it is only my opinion—governors and senior teachers involved in the opt-out will have to be replaced at some point. Neither feuding governors nor teachers must be seen to

win. The only victory that we want is a victory for good sense, the educational needs of the pupils and the wishes of the local community.
The Minister has deliberately sought to create trouble in my constituency, and for that I will never forgive him. The people of Newham will now have to look to the election of a Labour Government to sort out the sorry mess at Stratford school. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to give us the necessary assurances.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I believe that the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will seek to catch my eye. I understand that the Minister agrees, provided that hon. Members leave him sufficient time to reply.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: This matter is a tragedy for the pupils of Stratford school because they come from the local community which contributes, through its poll tax via the council, to the Department of Education and Science, the money for the school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, the school is the property not of the governors or the parents but of the public and the community which it serves now and will serve in future.
Stratford school is one of three secondary schools that were due for closure under the Newham plan for which Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, asked. The southern part of the borough south of the A13 covers an area of land the equivalent distance from Earl's Court to Blackfriars and is an island that is accessible only by virtually three points across a main road which is the equivalent of a river—the Newham docklands. In that area we have two special schools, two nursery schools and no fewer than 12 primary schools, but no secondary school. The existence of surplus and larger numbers in the north of the borough prejudices the interests of parents and pupils in the area of Newham, South, the Newham docklands, which I have the honour to represent.

Mr. Ron Leighton: There was never any great demand for the opting out of Stratford school. On the first ballot, there was a majority of 10 against; on the second, a narrow majority of 18 in favour—a wafer-thin 2 per cent., or only 33 per cent. of the electoral roll.
Nearly all the governors and staff were against. All expert and professional local opinion opposed the opt-out. All head teachers in the borough were against it, as were the community college, the chairman of the local training and enterprise council, and the three local Members of Parliament. All those with local knowledge and experience warned against the opt-out, saying that it would lead to an unmanageable situation.
Then along came the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). Following blind, ideological dogma, he went ahead with the opt-out, and Stratford quickly became a school for scandal, with one disgraceful episode following another.
Newham has many ethnic groups, languages, and currents. A professional local education authority is vitally necessary to hold the ring, keep a balance, and maintain the standards that the Government, for ideological reasons, destroyed in their blind opposition to democratic local government. They handed power to opportunists with hidden agendas and personal ambitions, and ever since there has been a catalogue of disaster and scandalous events.
After bitter disputes the school's chairman, Father Reilly, was ousted. One governor applied for the post of deputy head, which was advertised internally and without the knowledge of the head teacher. The governors then purported to sack the head, but she was reinstated by the Secretary of State—so much for local management. There have been public brawls in the school assembly, with words such as "liar", "fascist", and "racist" thrown about. The police were called to the school on a number of occasions, and there have been various legal actions alleging assault between those supposed to be running the school.
The Secretary of State was compelled to appoint two governors, who have now been boycotted by the others. Accusations have been made by both sides of intimidation and corruption. One principal added to the farce by declaring a 24-hour hunger strike. Can that be the way to run a school?
The Government must accept that they got it wrong. They must agree to sit down with Newham council to find a solution.

Mr. Jack Straw: Stratford is about the ill-considered, partisan policy of opting out exploding in the Government's face. It is not a race issue. The Independent commented that the events at Stratford,
unprecedented in the history of state governance",
were, in many features,
the direct consequence of government policy.
The Times, in a leader entitled "Opted into Anarchy", said that the Secretary of State
is hoist with his own petard.
As my hon. Friends pointed out, the Minister of State was warned directly of the consequences of allowing opting out. The governing body said:
Grant-maintained status would lead rapidly to an unmanageable situation in which the school would be unable to provide a proper education for its pupils.
Those warnings were ignored by the Minister and, sadly, the governing body was proved correct.
What must be done? Ministers must face up to the seriousness of the situation, for which they alone are responsible. Their indolence and complacency is inexcusable. For the Secretary of State to say in a week when the school was in chaos that it was "operating satisfactorily" was bizarre.
A team of Her Majesty's inspectorate must be sent to the school immediately, and its report published as quickly as possible. If just 10 per cent. of the incidents reported had occurred at a local authority school, the Secretary of State would already have sent in Her Majesty's inspectorate with a blaze of publicity. Look how swiftly he

acted last year over Culloden school in Tower Hamlets—but the HMI has not visited Stratford school since 4 December, and then only as a matter of routine.
The Audit Commission—not private auditors—must institute a formal audit of the school. On the basis of Her Majesty's inspectorate and commission's reports, Ministers must be ready to issue directions to the governors under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, and to use any other powers that they have to produce stability in the school. If Ministers need additional powers at this stage in the life of this Parliament, they should talk to the official Opposition. In government, we would act in the way that I have described.
Stratford proves beyond doubt how establishing a market in schools and opting them out of any local accountability can lead only to "anarchy"—the word used by The Times, direct rule from Whitehall, or the worst of both worlds, which is what we have today.
State schools must be accountable to the community that they serve, and which pays for them. Whitehall cannot run 25,000 schools. That is why opted-out schools must be returned to their parent local authorities—with, of course, clear safeguards to prevent discrimination against school or staff. Under Labour, there will be independent public inquiries into any local authority proposal to close a school. That would have provided Stratford parents with a just hearing of their case. Under Labour, there will also be an education standards commission, which could and would intervene at the behest of parents, teachers or governors to prevent circumstances such as those at Stratford from ever beginning to develop.
I give Stratford parents this pledge: Labour will not allow their children to be used as political pawns, as the Tory Government have so cynically done.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): That last remark really took the biscuit. Opposition Members have talked about Stratford as though they were talking about some kind of academic exercise. They have not really been concerned about the 600-odd pupils at the school.

Mr. Spearing: I mentioned them specifically.

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, what I have said will be obvious to him.
I will quote from a letter written by Mr. Scivetti, the chairman of the school PTA. He has two children at the school, and was responsible for calling a very successful parent-teacher meeting this evening. He wrote:
Jack Straw talks of a school in chaos yet neither he nor any other Labour MPs have visited the school. Were they to do so, they would see how well the school continues to function. They might remark at the high quality of the education; the quiet in the classrooms; the good behaviour and discipline of the pupils and the very high standard and progress being made.
Children have only one chance in their secondary education. Some of those pupils at Stratford were victims of Newham's outrageous behaviour, and its attempts to empty the school last year. Let us be clear about this: when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talks about returning the school to Newham, what he really means is closing the school, because he knows that that is the policy of Newham council. He is talking about trying to return those pupils to an education authority that


has palpably failed. He is asking us to believe that the best way forward for Stratford school is, in fact, a leap backwards—a leap that would return the school to Newham LEA.
I say this to the hon. Members who seek to represent Newham: whatever differences may exist at Stratford school, everyone there is united on one thing—their absolute abhorrence of the idea of ever being returned to the control of Newham LEA.
What is Newham's panacea? The hon. Member for Newham, North-West should face up to the performance of its LEA. Newham is bottom of the league table in regard to the amount of money delegated to schools. It is almost bottom of the league table for exam results. It ranked 94th out of 96 LEAs in respect of average GCSE results over the last three years for which records are available, and it ranked next to last in the national tests for seven-year-olds: in the composite results and in English and maths separately, it came 104th out of 105. It did slightly better in science, coming 103rd. That is the record of Newham local education authority that Opposition Members seek to support.
Let us consider again what Mr. Scivetti, the chairman of the parent-teacher association, said in his letter:
I would suggest it is the education of children at these LEA schools which is more likely to suffer and it is to these schools they"—
Opposition Members—
should direct their attention.
Opposition Members have said on previous occasions and in previous questions to me, although not during this debate, that Stratford school is a waste of money. That was not repeated this evening. Opposition Members have made that very clear. They say that they believe that Newham is so efficient and streamlined that it could manage the school and provide high quality education.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the Minister is casting aspersions. He said that one of us three hon. Members who represent Newham said that a school was a waste of money. I have never said that and I do not think that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have said that. The Minister should substantiate that remark or withdraw it with the rest of his tirade.

Mr. Eggar: It was the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) who raised the question of the financing of Stratford school with me. I believe, from memory, that it was at Question Time.

Mr. Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never used those words. Will the Minister quote from where in Hansard I said that?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has, on previous occasions, made a statement about the cost of educating pupils at Stratford school. As he would surely want to know the facts, I can tell him that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the Minister cannot show that he has done other than to misrepresent the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), he should withdraw his earlier remark.

Mr. Eggar: I am very willing to return to the interjection that the hon. Gentleman made about financing—

Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is absolutely outrageous conduct from the Minister, who is trying to avoid responsibility for the school. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have just asked him to withdraw a totally unfounded remark about my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). With respect, I invite you to ask him to withdraw it again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the Minister was in the process of withdrawing it. I very much hope that he will do so.

Mr. Eggar: If I have misrepresented the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, of course I withdraw. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware that he has raised the question of the cost of financing pupils at Stratford with me.
The cost per pupil at Stratford is £2,600 per pupil on the roll today and that compares with Newham's standard spending assessment—the basis on which the Government's revenue support grant for the authority is determined—of £3,500 for 11 to 15-year-olds and £5,000 for over-16-year-olds.

Mr. Straw: What are the Government going to do about Stratford school?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wants to consider the record of Stratford school. Progress to date at the school has been remarkable. It now has 570 pupils, compared with only about 180 when Newham had finished luring children and teachers away. The school had almost to start from scratch, not knowing until the last moment how many pupils and staff it would have on 1 April 1991. Instead of attacking the school, Opposition Members should join in praising the head, the head's staff, parents and pupils for their sheer hard work and determination. [Interruption.] Again, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Blackburn says that no one has attacked the school. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said at the beginning of the debate that the governors, the head and the senior staff should leave the school. If that is not attacking the school, it is riot clear to me what is.
Although the school continues to grow and to provide pupils with a good education, it is well known that there have been difficulties between the governing body and the head teacher. For Opposition Members, particularly those whose constituents are involved in the school, that should be a matter of concern and a reason to give the school support. It should not be an opportunity for political point scoring of the cheap sort that we heard tonight.
We have written to the governing body on several occasions to give advice and guidance on the sort of relationships that we would like to see. We shall soon send it the guidance that it asked for on the role of governors. This follows on from the advice that we have already given. For instance, the chairman of the governors was told in a letter from an official in January:
The Secretary of State considers that the success of a grant-maintained school depends in no small measure upon a good working relationship between the headteacher of the school and the governing body. The headteacher is the governing body's professional adviser and their link between the formulation of policy and its execution in the school." In February, the chairman was informed of the Secretary of State's view on a disruption caused in the school earlier that day. He was told:


The Secretary of State is of the very strong view that the welfare of the children transcends any disagreement which you may have with the headteacher or any other persons and that it is wholly wrong to seek to involve pupils directly in such matters.

Mr. Spearing: I think that the Minister will agree that I said that the welfare of the pupils was the first consideration. He did not acknowledge that. Will he now acknowledge that by agreeing to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that the Minister ask his inspectors to go into the school to see that the norms that he mentions are indeed maintained?

Mr. Eggar: Her Majesty's inspectorate is closely involved with the school and will continue to be involved. It will continue to advise Ministers on the position. The hon. Member for Blackburn raised a point about auditors. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Department's auditors paid a visit to the school—I think in the middle of last week. As is well known, in addition to the representations that we have made to the governors, we have used our power under the Education Reform Act 1988 to appoint two first-rate additional governors to the school, Mrs. Daphne Gould and Professor Eric Bolton. They play a full and active part in the governing body.
The Government intend to assist the school to get over its difficulties and to ensure that, by whatever means necessary within our powers, the school knows what is expected of it and the right atmosphere is created to allow the head and her teaching team to get on with their job. We have not hesitated and we will not hestiate to use when necessary the powers given to us by Parliament. [Interruption.] We have made that clear to the governing body at every stage.
I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West say, again from a sedentary position, that we had been

chucking money at the school. That is exactly the point that I made earlier. The school is getting some £2,600 per pupil. That compares with the education SSA allowed to Newham council per pupil of some £3,500 for 11 to 16-year-olds and £5,000 for post-l6-year-olds. I might say that this great educational nirvana which is Newham chooses not to spend as much money per pupil on education as the Government allow it. The Government will continue to keep a close watch on the position at the school. We shall assist the governing body in the efficient and orderly carrying out of its work in every way possible. We will use our powers to intervene where necessary.
As was made clear tonight at the meeting of the parent-teacher association, the parents, pupils and teachers at Stratford want their school to succeed. They want and deserve a first-class education for their children. They must not be put off that objective by the negative approach of Labour Members. Given time, patience, assistance and support, Stratford school will go from strength to strength. It deserves the support of everyone, including the Members of Parliament who represent the area, in its continuing work for the pupils of its community. I trust that, after this debate, Opposition Members and especially the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will have worked out their bile and will seek to support the school and the teachers there.
I thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for giving me this opportunity to place on record the Government's support for Stratford school and for the work of the head teacher and her team. I hope that all involved will allow them to settle down and allow the school to mature into the first-class school that I know that it is capable of becoming.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.